Everyone is obliged to know the mechanism of the human consciousness.
Joseph Overton.
So:
Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003), senior vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Killed in a plane crash. He formulated a model for changing the perception of a problem in public opinion, posthumously named the Overton Window.
Have you ever heard of the Overton Window? About one of the methods of "brainwashing", or, more precisely, the management of society (in fact, its destruction) by changing the "generally accepted" through a well-tried method of deception?
But, as the sociologist Joseph Overton (1960–2003) [1] convincingly proved in 1990 in his "window theory", this is absolutely not the case. It turns out that there is a whole technology of destruction of social institutions and the legalization of morally unacceptable ideas. And you only need to do 5 steps!
You will understand how homosexuality and same-sex marriage are legalized. It will become quite obvious that the work on the legalization of pedophilia and incest will be completed in Europe in the coming years. As well as child euthanasia, by the way.
Promotional video:
We are lying
Joseph Overton described how ideas completely alien to society were lifted from the cesspool of public contempt, laundered and, in the end, legislated.
According to Overton's Window of Opportunity, for every idea or problem in society, there is a so-called. window of opportunity. Within this window, the idea may or may not be widely discussed, openly supported, promoted, and tried to legislate. The window is moved, thereby changing the fan of possibilities, from the “unthinkable” stage, that is, completely alien to public morality, completely rejected to the “actual politics” stage, that is, already widely discussed, accepted by the mass consciousness and enshrined in laws.
This is not brainwashing as such, but more subtle technologies. They are made effective by consistent, systematic application and invisibility for the society-victim of the very fact of the impact.
Below, I will use an example to analyze how, step by step, society begins to first discuss something unacceptable, then consider it appropriate, and in the end resigns itself to a new law that consolidates and protects the once unthinkable.
TECHNOLOGY OF LEGALIZATION OF ANYTHING
You will understand how homosexuality and same-sex marriage are legalized. It will become quite obvious that the work on the legalization of pedophilia and incest will be completed in Europe in the coming years. As well as child euthanasia, by the way.
Joseph Overton described how ideas completely alien to society were lifted from the cesspool of public contempt, laundered and, in the end, legislated.
According to Overton's Window of Opportunity, for every idea or problem in society, there is a so-called. window of opportunity. Within this window, the idea may or may not be widely discussed, openly supported, promoted, and tried to legislate. The window is moved, thereby changing the fan of possibilities, from the “unthinkable” stage, that is, completely alien to public morality, completely rejected to the “actual politics” stage, that is, already widely discussed, accepted by the mass consciousness and enshrined in laws.
This is not brainwashing as such, but more subtle technologies. They are made effective by consistent, systematic application and invisibility for the society-victim of the very fact of the impact.
Below, I will use an example to analyze how, step by step, society begins to first discuss something unacceptable, then consider it appropriate, and in the end resigns itself to a new law that consolidates and protects the once unthinkable.
Take something completely unimaginable for example. Let's say cannibalism, that is, the idea of legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other. A harsh enough example?
HOW TO MAKE A CANNIBAL OUT OF HUMAN SOCIETY?
But it is obvious to everyone that right now (2014) there is no way to launch the propaganda of cannibalism - society will rears up. This situation means that the problem of legalizing cannibalism is at the zero stage of the window of opportunity. This stage, according to Overton's theory, is called the "Unthinkable." Let us now simulate how this unthinkable will be implemented after going through all the stages of the window of opportunity.
Once again, Overton described a TECHNOLOGY that allows you to legalize absolutely any idea.
Note! He did not offer a concept, did not formulate his thoughts in some way - he described a working technology. That is, such a sequence of actions, the execution of which invariably leads to the desired result. As a weapon for the destruction of human communities, such technology can be more effective than a thermonuclear charge.
HOW DARE IT IS
The topic of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. It is undesirable to argue on this topic either in the press or, moreover, in a decent company. While this is an unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. Accordingly, the first movement of the Overton Window is to transfer the theme of cannibalism from the realm of the unthinkable to the realm of the radical.
We have freedom of speech.
Well, why not talk about cannibalism?
Scientists are supposed to talk about everything in a row - there are no taboo topics for scientists, they are supposed to study everything. And if this is the case, we will gather an ethnological symposium on the topic "Exotic rites of the tribes of Polynesia." We will discuss the history of the subject on it, introduce it into scientific circulation and get the fact of an authoritative statement about cannibalism.
You see, it turns out that cannibalism can be substantively discussed and, as it were, remain within the limits of scientific respectability.
The Overton window has already moved. That is, a revision of positions has already been indicated. Thus, the transition from an irreconcilably negative attitude of society to a more positive attitude is ensured.
Simultaneously with the pseudo-scientific discussion, some "Society of Radical Cannibals" must certainly appear. And even if it is presented only on the Internet, radical cannibals will certainly be noticed and quoted in all the necessary media.
First, this is another fact of the statement. And secondly, shocking scumbags of such a special genesis are needed to create the image of a radical scarecrow. These will be "bad cannibals" as opposed to another scarecrow - "fascists calling to burn people different from them at the stake." But about the scarecrows below. To begin with, it is enough to publish stories about what British scientists and some radical scumbags of a different nature think about eating human flesh.
The result of the first movement of the Overton Window: an unacceptable topic was introduced into circulation, the taboo was desacralized, the unambiguity of the problem was destroyed - “grayscale” was created.
WHY NOT?
With the next step, Window moves on and moves the theme of cannibalism from the radical to the realm of the possible.
At this stage, we continue to quote "scientists". After all, one cannot turn away from knowledge? About cannibalism. Anyone who refuses to discuss this should be branded as a bigot and a hypocrite.
When condemning bigotry, it is imperative to come up with an elegant name for cannibalism. So that all sorts of fascists do not dare to hang labels on dissidents with a word on the letter "Ka".
Attention! The creation of a euphemism is a very important point. To legalize an unthinkable idea, it is necessary to change its true name.
No more cannibalism.
This is now called, for example, anthropophagy. But this term will soon be replaced again, recognizing this definition as offensive.
The purpose of inventing new names is to divert the essence of the problem from its designation, to tear the form of a word from its content, to deprive its ideological opponents of the language. Cannibalism turns into anthropophagy, and then into anthropophilia, just like a criminal changes surnames and passports.
In parallel with the game of names, a reference precedent is being created - historical, mythological, actual, or simply invented, but most importantly - legitimate. It will be found or coined as "proof" that anthropophilia can in principle be legalized.
"Do you remember the legend about a selfless mother who gave her blood to drink to children dying of thirst?"
"And the stories of the ancient gods, who ate everyone in general - it was in the order of things for the Romans!"
“Well, the Christians who are closer to us, all the more so with anthropophilia, are all right! They still ritually drink blood and eat the flesh of their god. You are not accusing the Christian church of something, are you? Who the hell are you?"
The main task of the bacchanalia of this stage is to at least partially remove the eating of people from criminal prosecution. At least once, at least at some historical moment.
SO IS NECESSARY
After the legitimizing precedent is presented, it becomes possible to move the Overton Window from the territory of the possible to the area of the rational.
This is the third stage. It completes the fragmentation of a single problem.
"The desire to eat people is genetically inherent, it is in human nature"
"Sometimes it is necessary to eat a person, there are insurmountable circumstances"
"There are people who want to be eaten" "Anthropophiles have been provoked!" "The forbidden fruit is always sweet" "A free person has the right to decide what he has" "Do not hide information and let everyone understand who he is - an anthropophile or an anthropophobe" Its inevitability has not been proven."
In the public mind, a "battlefield" is artificially created for the problem. Scarecrows are placed on the extreme flanks - radical supporters and radical opponents of cannibalism who have appeared in a special way.
Real opponents - that is, normal people who do not want to remain indifferent to the problem of rastabirovka cannibalism - are trying to pack together with scarecrows and write down as radical haters. The role of these scarecrows is to actively create the image of crazy psychopaths - aggressive, fascist haters of anthropophilia, calling to burn cannibals, Jews, communists and blacks alive. The presence in the media is ensured to all of the above, except for the real opponents of legalization.
In this situation, the so-called. anthropophiles remain, as it were, in the middle between the scarecrows, on the "territory of reason", from where with all the pathos of "sanity and humanity" they condemn "fascists of all stripes."
“Scientists” and journalists at this stage prove that humanity throughout its history has eaten each other from time to time, and this is normal. Now the topic of anthropophilia can be transferred from the rational to the category of the popular. The Overton window moves on.
IN GOOD MEANING
To popularize the topic of cannibalism, it is necessary to support it with pop content, pairing it with historical and mythological personalities, and, if possible, with modern media personalities.
Anthropophilia makes its way into news and talk shows en masse. People are eaten in wide distribution movies, in lyrics and video clips.
One of the popularization techniques is called "Look around!"
"Didn't you know that one famous composer is that one?.. an anthropophile."
"And one well-known Polish screenwriter - all his life he was an anthropophile, he was even persecuted."
“And how many of them were in psychiatric hospitals! How many millions were deported, deprived of citizenship!.. By the way, how do you like Lady Gaga's new video "Eat me, baby"?
At this stage, the topic being developed is taken to the TOP and it begins to self-reproduce itself in the mass media, show business and politics.
Another effective technique: the essence of the problem is actively blabbed at the level of information operators (journalists, TV presenters, social activists, etc.), cutting off specialists from the discussion.
Then, at the moment when everyone was already bored and the discussion of the problem reached a dead end, a specially selected professional comes and says: “Gentlemen, in fact, everything is not at all like that. And that's not the point, but this. And you have to do this and that”- and meanwhile gives a very definite direction, the tendentiousness of which is set by the movement of“Windows”.
To justify the supporters of legalization, humanization of criminals is used by creating a positive image of them through characteristics not associated with a crime.
“These are creative people. Well, I ate my wife, so what?"
“They truly love their victims. Eats, it means he loves!"
"Anthropophiles have a high IQ and otherwise have a strict morality."
"Anthropophiles are victims themselves, their lives made them"
“They were brought up like that,” etc.
These kinds of freaks are the salt of popular talk shows.
“We will tell you a tragic love story! He wanted to eat her! And she just wanted to be eaten! Who are we to judge them? Perhaps this is love? Who are you to get in the way of love ?!"
WE ARE HERE POWER
The Overton Windows move to the fifth stage of the movement when the topic is warmed up to the point of transferring it from the category of popular to the sphere of actual politics.
The preparation of the legal framework begins. Lobbyist groups in power are consolidating and emerging from the shadows. Sociological polls are published, allegedly confirming a high percentage of supporters of the legalization of cannibalism. Politicians are beginning to roll trial balloons of public statements on the legislative consolidation of this topic. A new dogma is being introduced into the public consciousness - "the prohibition of eating people is prohibited."
This trademark dish of liberalism is tolerance as a ban on taboos, a ban on correcting and preventing deviations that are destructive for society.
During the last stage of Okna's movement from the category of "popular" to "actual politics", society has already been broken. The most lively part of it will somehow resist the legislative consolidation of not so long ago still unthinkable things. But on the whole, society is already broken. It has already agreed to its defeat.
Laws have been adopted, the norms of human existence have been changed (destroyed), then echoes of this topic will inevitably come to schools and kindergartens, which means the next generation will grow up without a chance of survival at all. This was the case with the legalization of pederasty (now they demand to call themselves gay). Now, before our very eyes, Europe is legalizing incest and child euthanasia.
HOW TO BREAK THE TECHNOLOGY
The Window of Opportunity described by Overton moves most easily in a tolerant society. In a society that has no ideals and, as a result, there is no clear separation of good and evil.
Do you want to talk about your mother being a whore? Do you want to print a report about this in the magazine? Sing a song. To prove in the end that being a whore is normal and even necessary? This is the technology described above. It relies on permissiveness.
There is no taboo.
Nothing is sacred.
There are no sacred concepts, the very discussion of which is prohibited, and their dirty speculation is suppressed immediately. All this is not. What is there?
There is the so-called freedom of speech, turned into freedom of dehumanization. Before our very eyes, one by one, the framework that protected society with the abyss of self-destruction is being removed. The road is now open there.
Do you think that alone you cannot change anything?
You are absolutely right, a man alone cannot do a damn thing.
But personally, you must remain human. And a person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what one cannot do - will be done by people united by a common idea. Look around.
However, this is not the end. There is also a 6th step, as can be seen in some European countries. This is a step from the norm to the dictatorship. All those who disagree will first be fined, then imprisoned, and then, possibly, executed - it's just a matter of time.
How to resist this? Tell others. He who is forewarned is armed.
HOW TO COUNTER OVERTON TECHNOLOGIES
Dehumanization as the ultimate goal, to make normal and ordinary what was previously impossible or forbidden for reasons of simple human morality - this is the essence of the technology called "Overton Window". Details of this were discussed in the material “Destruction Technologies. Overton's Window”, then an object lesson of this inhuman technique was presented by … the employees of the Danish zoo, who killed and dismembered the giraffe Marius in the form of a show and even an anatomical theater for children.
Reader of the blog nstarikov.ru Yevgeny Khavrenko wrote an article on how to resist the Overton Window technology.
IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTION OF CONCEPTS
“The Overton Window technology is based on the basic weaknesses of almost any personality. The "beauty" of this technology is that it works even when you know it. Usually manipulation stops working as soon as its true meaning is revealed. In this case, the impact on the subconscious occurs through the basic needs of a person.
I would describe the main levers of pressure on a person in this way:
- Tolerance.
- Euphemism.
- Membership in the pack.
- The illusion of authority.
- Legal means right.
"Overton Windows" are based on basic human needs, which occupy places from 2 to 4 in Maslow's pyramid.
This is the Maslow Pyramid:
- Physiological needs: hunger, thirst, sex drive, etc.
- Need for security: a sense of confidence, getting rid of fear and failure.
- Need for belonging and love.
- Need for respect: achievement of success, approval, recognition.
- Cognitive needs: to know, be able to, explore.
- Aesthetic needs: harmony, order, beauty.
- The need for self-actualization: the realization of their goals, abilities, the development of their own personality.
Due to the fact that needs 2 through 4 are almost never fully satisfied and forever, they easily become an object of manipulation to almost any person.
Tolerance, as an opportunity to introduce any, even the most disgusting opinions into everyday life. The most interesting thing is that in the description of tolerance (Wikipedia), in addition to tolerance, there is one more definition - the voluntary transfer of suffering. It is this definition that is suitable for those people who are ready to put up with opposing views, or rather the imposition of these views on them as their own. It is the need for belonging and respect that forces us to abandon our views, fearing to cause aggression and discontent in the opponent.
Euphemism is an indispensable component for overcoming internal resistance. Roughly speaking, this is a saving stick that helps to establish an internal balance between your own values and completely opposite values imposed from the outside. For example, in our culture, the rude word "Bugger" (from others - the Greek "child", "boy", and "loving", that is, "loving boys") is replaced by the more neutral word "gay". And the phrases “My friend is gay” and “My friend is a homosexual” have completely different emotional implications.
Packing is a set of needs - security, community, and the need for respect. Every person speaking to the public, making a presentation, making a toast in a large company, knows how difficult it is sometimes to endure these few minutes when all eyes are turned to him. If you have such experience, remember it, please. Now imagine that you need to express your disagreement with all these people - respected and not so, friends and just acquaintances, bosses and subordinates. At the same time, it is important to speak disagreement without using euphemisms, otherwise you will not convey the exact meaning, but on the contrary, you will confuse everything even more. Personally, I have rarely met people capable of such actions.
The illusion of authority is again an opportunity to try on one's own views, already partly imposed from outside. If there is a chill of disagreement inside me, the "Authority" readily throws a saving stick at me, taking responsibility upon itself. At the same time, it is enough for me to have the most general ideas about the "Authority" itself. There is no talk at all about finding out information about a person or society, we are simply glad that he (it) has taken on the heavy burden of our torment. Recently, even personalities have not been assigned to "Authority". More and more often we hear - “scientists have discovered…., Psychologists assert…., The party declared…” and so on.
Legality is the rule of accepting alien norms. "From now on, I have the right to reproach others for not agreeing with me." Thus, compensating for what remains not characteristic of my personality. The more I accuse others of being backward or provocative, the stronger the voice of contradiction within me. The famous psychiatrist K. G. Jung believed that fanaticism was a sign of suppressed doubt. A person who is really convinced of his righteousness, is absolutely calm and can discuss the opposite point of view without a shadow of indignation. In the case of the imposition of other people's values, complete conviction does not occur, the doubt has to be suppressed due to the conviction of others. Legality gives every right to do so.
CONSEQUENCES OF OVERTON WINDOWS TECHNOLOGY
The most terrible consequence of this technology is that a person loses harmony, getting in its place endless internal disputes and torments. Because when planting this technology, no one thinks about how to make the person himself happy. The goal of technology is to get a new, necessary vector of development.
After achieving the result, a lot of people are forced to maintain the illusion of accepting other people's values. People are less and less human, losing touch with their roots and culture. In other words, a person from a strong tree turns into a tumbleweed, becoming just as dry and vulnerable.
We can find an example of this in the high suicide rate in developed countries. People with high comfort do not begin to feel happier, paying for it with humanity.
A friend of mine who grew up on Hollywood films and glossy magazines has always dreamed of having a large country house with a double garage, a pool and a wine cellar. On the way to this goal, he had to work hard, survive a heart attack and oncology, which he is still struggling with. At the same time, constant employment for 12 hours a day alienated him from his family. The wife, feeling offended but not daring to reproach him, focused on the children, trying to get there the warmth that she so lacked. Children, without the control of their father, feeling the power over their mother, became more and more cynical egoists. Ultimately, he built the house he dreamed of, but after six months he admitted that he would give everything for the opportunity to return 8 years ago, to the place where their family was so happy, living in a 2-room apartment. spending holidays and vacations together.
In his case, family closeness became the price he paid for high comfort and social status, and frustration replaced energy. Social status, social recognition, comfort and safety do not in themselves lead us to our happiness, and are not obligatory attributes of it. They are and should remain a means of achievement, not the very end, and disappointment comes when there is emptiness behind them.
Opposition to the Overton Window technology
First of all, you can resist by abandoning the attempt to always and everywhere be "normal". At the moment when the “individual” is replaced by the “normal” we automatically transfer our own control into the wrong hands. At best, we strive to be comfortable for others, and at worst, we fall under targeted manipulation. It is the culture, manners, customs and foundations of ancestors that help to find their individuality. Integration of this into modern life helps to stay connected to your own heritage. I do not call to blindly follow long-standing traditions, but only remember, preserve and respect them.
Use the concept of tolerance only as a concept of tolerance, otherwise it is necessary to protect your borders. For example, it is quite acceptable to hear about European Gay parades, but refuse to accept official gay marriages in one's own culture, where the main contradiction may be the cultural-Christian values and traditions of the Slavs.
It is best to deal with euphemisms and substitution of concepts by highlighting the true meaning of information. If this is a "picture" from the TV, then try to repeat the same thing, but calling everything by its proper names. If this is a person who argues with you, then paraphrase his words without resorting to euphemisms. Works very soberingly even for the person himself. For example, if you are told that America and Europe want the primacy of democracy in Ukraine, you can rephrase the question - “Did I understand you correctly? Do you think that the countries - bankers of our world just wanted to share money for the benefit of the Ukrainian people, solely for the sake of democracy?"
It is difficult to fight belonging to a pack, and it is not necessary. It's important to understand where my flock really is and to separate it with boundaries or frames. For example: the phrase - "Our society is not so democratic as to allow same-sex marriage" try to rebuild it taking into account your interests - "Democracy is an expression of the will of the people and perhaps same-sex marriages are not so suitable for our society to become part of our culture."
An authoritative opinion, in most cases, dissipates to smithereens, as soon as we ask ourselves a question - who is this authority, and whether he is trustworthy without social regalia.
For example, if you see a specialist speaking on TV, about whom you have no information other than the one indicated below during the speech, just think about his words. Would your opinion change if a neighbor or colleague said the same? If authority becomes “Captain Evidence,” then what is the essence of his performance? Sly repeat what you said 20 minutes ago with your co-workers on the way home? If, nevertheless, you heard something new, you should think about the benefits of the authority itself. Remember that he needs to earn your trust, no matter how he calls himself.
Should legality be taken as the highest recognition? I think there will be an unequivocal answer to this question in our state. I will add only my observation, which dispelled my personal myth about the state as a form of caring for people. I have specially selected a non-political example. When Poland joined the EU in 2009, public sector wages fell sharply compared to food prices. The news reported on the strike of border guards. It is quite understandable that people in service cannot simply not go to work. They acted differently - they began to perform all the procedures specified in the instructions. It would seem - great! People are finally doing what is asked of them. Only queues at the borders have grown 6 times. It turns out that the state system itself is built in such a way that it is impossible to follow it without breaking the law,leaving a narrow loophole for pardon or punishment at your own discretion.
I tried to describe the opposition of the Overton Window technology both at the state level and at the personal level for each individual person. The whole point of this article fits into the concluding phrase of Joseph P. Overton “But you personally must remain human. And a person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what one cannot do - will be done by people united by a common idea.
Author: Evgeny Khavrenko