American sociologist Joseph Overton described the technology of how you can change the attitude of society towards things that were previously considered completely unacceptable.
Perhaps, after reading, your idea of the world in which we live will completely change.
- According to the Overton Window, there is a so-called window of opportunity for every idea or problem in society. 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.
Let's take something completely unimaginable as an example. Let's say cannibalism, that is, the idea of legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other. A harsh enough example?
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 model how this unthinkable will be implemented, passing through all the stages of the window of opportunity.
• Technology
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 a certain 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 daring!
The topic of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. It is undesirable to discuss 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 let it be 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 put into circulation, the taboo was desacralized, the unambiguity of the problem was destroyed - “grayscale” was created.
• Why not?
The next step is that Window moves further 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.
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 fictitious, 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 orgy 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.
• This is how it should be
After the legitimizing precedent has been provided, it becomes possible to move the Overton Window from the territory of the possible to the realm 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”
• “Is there any harm in anthropophilia? 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 ramming cannibalism - are trying to pack together with scarecrows and write them 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 provided 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 field of the rational to the category of the popular. The Overton window moves on.
• In a good way
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 have been 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 we need 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 for 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 in power here
The Overton Windows move to the fifth stage of the movement when the topic is warmed up to the possibility 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 topic of 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 "current 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 accepted 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.
• How to break 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 eyes, one by one, the framework that protected society from 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 will not be able to do - will be done by people united by a common idea. Look around.
