Subversive actions can generally be grouped into three interrelated categories:

• Establishing front groups and penetrating and manipulating existing political parties
• Infiltrating the armed forces, the police, and other institutions of the state, as well as important non-government organizations
• Generating civil unrest through demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts.

Other factors, while not specifically falling into these categories, may also be useful to subversive dissidents. Additionally, many tools may overlap into other groups of tools as well. As an example, subversives may infiltrate an organization for cultural subversion more so than for control. Civil unrest may be used to provoke the government into a violent response.

Infiltration and establishing front groups

In order for a group to be successful in subverting a government, the group itself and its ideas must be seen as an acceptable alternative to the status quo.
However, groups that work toward subverting a government, in many cases, follow ideas and promote goals that on their surface would not receive the support of the population.
Therefore, “to gain public credibility, attract new supporters, generate revenue, and acquire other resources, groups need to undertake political activities that are entirely separate, or appear separate, from the overtly violent activities of those groups. Sometimes this is achieved by infiltrating political parties, labor unions, community groups, and charitable organizations”.
Infiltrating organizations is an important tool because these institutions are already seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people and provide a platform to express their ideas. When infiltrating, the dissident identifies needs of the organization and then links those needs to solutions that his ideology can provide. This was a technique that the Communist Party USA employed. Once the organization has been co-opted, the dissident can then move on to establishing ties with other groups. Furthermore, in addition to gaining possible legitimacy for its ideas the infiltration of these groups can, “bolster political allies, attack government policies, and attract international support”. If some organizations are too difficult to infiltrate, it may be necessary to create new organizations that appear to be independent but are actually under the direction of the subversive group.

The infiltration of state organizations can provide subversive groups the opportunity to do many things to achieve their goals. The infiltration of security forces can provide information about the government’s capabilities and how they plan to address the group’s activities. Infiltration also provides the opportunity to plant false information, lead the government to misallocate resources, to steal funds, weapons, equipment, and other resources, and ultimately aid in weakening and delegitimizing the government. The targets of infiltration are not limited to the groups and institutions mentioned above. Economic industries and universities have also been the target for infiltration. In the case of universities, the liberal arts departments are more prone to subversion than the hard sciences.

Russian and French methods

Dominique Poirier, former employee and specialist in communication warfare in the French intelligence service, DGSE, describes extensively subversion in a book on the practices and methods of this agency, published in 2019, yet he rarely uses the noun “subversion,” remarkably. While presenting and describing extensively the Russian and French methods of subversion and counter-subversion, he explains that the French intelligence community in particular uses the term guerre de l’information, or “information warfare”.
Then information warfare subsumes a number of other nouns, sometimes of Russian origin, each denoting a specific action that may actually describe an action of subversion or counter-subversion. Coming to add to the latter difference in perception of the action of subversion, he further says that information warfare in the French intelligence community is ruled itself by active measures that the DGSE, acting as leading intelligence agency in France, adopted as an “all-encompassing” doctrine. Indeed, active measures in France would regulate not only all intelligence and counterintelligence activities, but also foreign affairs and diplomacy, domestic politics, and even the activities of the major industrial and business companies and groups in this country, since a period he locates between 1980 and 1982. For all the latter would be logically called to partake in a common and coherent effort in intelligence, counterintelligence, influence, and counterinfluence on the French soil as abroad.
Actually, the French intelligence community, and the DGSE in particular, always use the nouns “interference” (ingérence, in French) and “counterinterference” (contre-ingérence) to name “subversion” and “counter-subversion” respectively. The DGSE and one other intelligence agency of this country at least are particularly active in subversive activities abroad, often in a joint effort with the Russian foreign intelligence service, SVR RF, with a focus on the United States, Dominique Poirier specifies from firsthand knowledge and experience spanning the years 1980 to circa 2001. In the latter context, the main methods of subversion he presents as “actions of influence” and their expected results are the followings.

Most French and Russian actions of subversion, and of domestic influence alike, actually are governed by the notion of minority influence as initially defined by social psychologist Serge Moscovici. However, the DGSE in particular designs all such actions in accordance with fundamentals of a scientific approach akin to behaviorism, called “behavioral biology” (biologie comportementale, in French) initially established in the early 1980s by French military scientist Henri Laborit. Additionally, the narrative, or “formal aims” of the action of subversion — when there is one, as behavioral biology focuses on acting on the unconscious, or id, locating in the reptilian brain as defined by Paul D. MacLean — is defined in accordance with fundamentals in epistemology, another Russian import in French information warfare and active measures.
In the latter context, minority influence unfolds in five stages that Dominique Poirier describes as follow.

1. The stage revelation … aims to influence the majority in favor of / against something (social / political / economic / cultural issue). It is initiated by a small minority that spreads the message of the cause. The majority is caught by surprise, but it listens to it because it wants to know what the fuss is about, exactly.

2. In the stage question …, the majority listened to the message, and it reacts negatively to it because the arguments are absurd, excessive, and clash with the dominant scale of values, conservative therefore. Consequently, the majority takes some distances with the minority it now holds in contempt. Yet the minority is unabashed and continues trying to rally more people to what it holds as “the cause” (be it rational and justified or not, regardless, in the present explanation).

3. In the stage incubation …, the minority rallied to its cause a few people only, yet endowed with authority, in addition to others who are respected for their sole fame and notoriety, such as film actors, columnists, recipients of prestigious prizes, etc. All those people are opinion leaders, therefore.
The motives of those opinion leaders range from sincere, selfish, to opportunistic, because a need for greater notoriety and other stakes motivate them.
The latter detail is unimportant to the minority in the absolute, since what matters to it is that “the cause” be heard. In sum, the voice of the minority now has a potent echo chamber that validates its cause. At this stage, a psychological phenomenon settles.
The cause takes a new form that dismisses any further need to prove the validity of its substance. Many in the majority think that they can no longer ignore the minority, although its cause is now reducing to a few crafted slogans that repeat (example: BLM, Antifa).

4. The stage conversion marks the moment at which many in the majority begin to acknowledge the rightfulness of the cause of the minority, even if not sincerely since the arguments supporting its message did not change, or evolved and now are different, or even are no longer mentioned. In reality, the volte-face is largely motivated by a misperception that is a belief in an already ongoing adjustment of values in the majority, or “peer pressure per proxy” initiated by the few celebrities and the media. At this point, the action of influence really transforms into a manipulation.

5. The last stage innovation is reached when the cause of the minority has been widely acknowledged, to a point of being seen now as “a norm universally accepted in the country,” even though this is untrue in the facts.
The hardheaded people who stick to the old values together are the new minority. Those who are embracing the cause believe sincerely that they are not straying nor are influenced. Quite on the contrary, because they ever stick to the scale of values of their country, “which obviously changes along the natural and normal evolution of the society,” they think. Besides, they assume that they are not granted any authority great enough to oppose the voices of the many who together are the public opinion, nor have the nerve to question a cause that famous and respected persons endorse.
Moreover, the people of the former majority now see the remaining dissenters as “excessively conservatives, hardheaded, or even reactionaries,” thus turning the issue and its pro and con arguments upside down.
The change does not lay on an understanding of the cause and of the validity of its arguments, since that is not what brought the change of values to happen, but truly and unconsciously on an innate and therefore hardly repressible need for belonging / belongingness that originally was a herd instinct caused by a need for safety.

Formally speaking, the narrative that is the message of the cause actually is an action of influence, whose substance is strictly regulated, as explained below.

Establishing an action of influence claims the three following elements, plus a fourth when the circumstances are favorable.

1. The context, which is the political / social / economic / cultural situation(s) of the target country.

2. The expectation, which is the need / claim or object of the discontent of the minority or majority.

3. The message of influence, which are the myth and its narrative that the specialists of the intelligence agency design according to what 2. specifies, and to the actions chosen for spreading / voicing them.

4. The echo chamber, which of course consists in making other media relaying the action defined in 3.

Then the action of influence must include the following four steps.

A. Victimization of the minority or majority, which must be presented in terms chosen to arouse passionate feelings in the masses.

B. “Culpabilization” of the ruling elite or assimilated to it, which is the first goal of the action to be reached.

C. Call for redemption, addressed to the ruling elite or assimilated, which is the second goal of the action to be reached.

D. Mending / reparation, which must be elicited from the ruling elite or assimilated, final goal of the action.

It is understood that the action in four steps above actually is a manipulation of the masses rather than an action influence.
Its objective is to force the ruling elite or assimilated to comply to the demand of the minority, since the former collectively is the only one that is not fooled.  As the action is all about passion and at no point about reason, reaching successively and successfully each of its four steps consists in winning the minds of the masses along three successive objectives called “battles,” […]

BLM is classic example of the four steps described above

Economics

Economics can be both a tool of the internal and external subversive. For the external subversive simply cutting off credit can cause severe economic problems for a country. Activities of these kinds create human, economic, and political problems that, if not addressed, can challenge the competency of the government.

An example of this is the United States’ relations with Chile in the early 1970s.

Chileans marching in support of Allende.
A crowd of people marching to support the election of Salvador Allende for president in Santiago, Chile.

In an attempt to get Salvador Allende removed from office, the United States tried to weaken the Chilean economy. Chile received little foreign investments and the loss of credit prevented Chile from purchasing vital imports. An economic pressure of this kind prevents an economy from functioning and reduces a country’s standard of living. If the reduction is too great, the people may become willing to support a change in the government’s leadership. The main objective of economic pressures is to make it difficult for the country to fulfill its basic obligations to the citizenry either by cutting off trade or by depriving it of resources.

The internal subversive can also use economics to put pressure on the government through use of the strike. An example of this is the Chilean Truckers’ Strike* during the 1970s. The strike prevented the transport of food staples and forced nearly 50% of the national economy to cease production.
Activities of these kinds create human, economic, and political problems that, if not addressed, can challenge the competency of the government.

*Note: In October 1972, Chile saw the first of what were to be a wave of confrontational strikes led by some of the historically well-off sectors of Chilean society; these received the open support of United States President Richard Nixon. A strike by trucking company owners, which the CIA supported by funding them with US$2 million within the frame of the “September Plan”, began on 9 October 1972.

The 1973 Chilean coup d’état was the overthrow of the socialist President of Chile Salvador Allende by the army and national police.^[5][6] It followed an extended period of social unrest and political tension between the opposition-controlled Congress of Chile and the socialist President Salvador Allende, as well as economic warfare ordered by US President Richard Nixon

Coup of September 11, 1973. Bombing of La Moneda (presidential palace)

Agitation and civil unrest

As defined by Laurence Beilenson, agitation is “subversive propaganda by action such as mass demonstrations or the political strike, that is, a strike not intended to benefit the union or workers in the ordinary sense, but intended instead against the government”.
Furthermore, propaganda and agitation, even when they are legal forms of freedom of speech, press, and assembly can still be classified as subversive activity. These tools further demonstrate the need to determine intent of those taking action to identify subversive activities.

Civil unrest creates many of the problems that an insurgency campaign does.
First of all it is an affront to government authority, and if the government is unable to quell the unrest it leads to an erosion of state power.
This loss of power stems from the people’s lack of trust in the government to maintain law and order.
In turn, the people begin to question whether or not new leadership is needed.
Discrediting, disarming, and demoralizing the government is the goal of these activities and the cause of the government’s loss of power.
Civil unrest depletes resources as the government is forced to spend more money on additional police.
Additionally, civil unrest may be used to provoke a response from the government.
In the 1940s communists in France during strikes against the Marshall Plan would, “deliberately provoke the police and gendarmerie into acts of repressive violence in order to exploit the resulting ‘martyrs to the cause’ for propaganda purposes”.
These martyrs and subsequent propaganda can be useful in turning political and social groups against each other. The less violent forms of unrest, “such as worker absenteeism, passive resistance, boycotts, and deliberate attempts to cripple government agencies by ‘overloading the system’ with false reports, can have powerfully disruptive effects, both economically and politically”.

Offensive terror

Offensive terror can be defined as the killing of people, destruction of property, kidnapping, etc.
It is usually a minor part of subversion and, “is used not to exert force in the transfer of state power, but is meant to cower the people or ruler”. Force used in this manner is meant to reinforce other forms of persuasion in addition to cowering the people or leaders. Additionally, much like civil unrest and agitation, it raises the question of whether or not the state can provide security for the population. Terror also provides a practical motivation of physically removing political opponents.
The assassination of an organization’s leader may open the door to a successor that is more friendly to the subversives position or possibly someone that has successfully infiltrated the organization and is in fact one of the subversives.

President JFK Speech >>

Bribery

Bribery is one of the most common tools of subversion. Most societies see bribery as a form of corruption and it used as a subversive tool because it, “implies the undermining of existing rules of political or moral conduct”. It can also be one of the less reliable tools as well. Bribed officials are only useful if they take action. However actions taken over a period of time draw suspicion from the public. The official must be able to carefully conceal their actions or perform only key functions and action. For these reasons bribed officials are most effective when they are asked to take immediate action. In the case of external subversion, bribery is usually used for influence rather than for actions.

PS JFK 1961 Speech

THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS: ADDRESS BEFORE THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, APRIL 27, 1961

Fragment of the President John F. Kennedy Speech
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City,
April 27, 1961

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.