The ideological weapon of globalism: "Window Overton"

American sociologist Joseph Overton described the technology of how you can change the attitude of society to things that were previously considered completely unacceptable. The technology was called the Overton Window. Perhaps, after reading, your idea of ​​the world in which we live will completely change.

According to Ocone Overton, 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 attempted to be consolidated by law. The window is moved, changing the fan of possibilities, from the stage of "unthinkable", that is, completely alien to public morality, completely rejected before the stage of "actual politics", that is, already widely discussed, accepted by mass consciousness and enshrined in laws.

It's not brainwashing as such, but technology is more subtle. Effective them makes consistent, systemic application and invisibility for the society-victim of the very fact of the impact. Below, I will take an example to understand how, step by step, a society begins to discuss something unacceptable, then to consider it appropriate, and finally reconciles with a new law that consolidates and protects the once unthinkable.

Take for example something completely unimaginable. Let's say cannibalism, that is, the idea of ​​legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other. A rather rigid example? But it is obvious to everyone that right now there is no opportunity to launch propaganda of cannibalism - society will stand on its hind legs. This situation means that the problem of legalizing cannibalism is in the zero stage of the window of opportunity. This stage, according to Overton's theory, is called "Unthinkable." Let's simulate now, how this unthinkable will be realized, having passed all the stages of the window of possibilities.

Once again, Overton described a technology that allows you to legalize absolutely any idea. Note! He did not offer the concept, he did not formulate his thoughts in some way - he described the 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, this technology can be more effective than a thermonuclear charge.

The theme of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. To argue on this topic is undesirable neither in the press, nor, especially, in a decent company. While this is an unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. Accordingly, the first movement of Window Overton - to translate the theme of cannibalism from the unthinkable to the radical. We, after all, have freedom of speech. Well, so why not talk about cannibalism? Scientists generally should talk about everything in a row - for scientists there are no taboo topics, they are supposed to study everything. And if this is the case, we will collect an ethnological symposium on the topic "Exotic Rites of the Polynesian Tribes". 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, cannibalism, it turns out, can be talked about in detail and, as it were, to remain within the limits of scientific respectability.

Overton's window was already moving. That is, the revision of positions has already been indicated. This provides a transition from an irreconcilably negative attitude of society towards a more positive attitude. Simultaneously with the pseudo-scientific discussion, there must certainly appear some "Society of Radical Cannibals". And let it be represented only on the Internet - radical cannibals will certainly be noticed and quoted in all the necessary media.

First, this is another fact of utterance. And secondly, shocking thugs of such a special genesis are needed to create the image of a radical scarecrow. It will be "bad cannibals" as opposed to another scarecrow - "fascists, who call to burn at fires not like them". But about the bogeys a little lower. For starters, it is enough to publish stories about what British scientists think about eating human beings and some radical thugs of a different nature. The result of the first movement of the Overton Window: an unacceptable topic is put into circulation, the tabo is desecralized, there was a destruction of the uniqueness of the problem - "gradations of gray" were created. Why not?

The next step the Window moves on and translates the theme of cannibalism from the radical field into the realm of the possible. At this stage, we continue to quote "scientists". After all, you can not turn away from knowledge? About cannibalism. Anyone who refuses to discuss this should be branded as a hypocrite and hypocrite. Condemning prudishness, it is necessary to invent an elegant name for cannibalism. In order not to dare all fascists to hang on the dissenters labels with a word on the letter "Ka". Attention! Creating a euphemism is a very important point. To legalize an unthinkable idea, it is necessary to replace its real name. No more cannibalism. Now it is called, for example, anthropophagy. But this term will soon be replaced again, recognizing this definition as insulting.

The purpose of inventing new names is to take the essence of the problem away from its designation, to tear the form of the word from its content, to deprive its ideological opponents of the language. Cannibalism turns into anthropophagy, and then into anthropophilia, just as a criminal changes his surnames and passports.

Parallel to the game of names, a supporting precedent is created - historical, mythological, actual or simply invented, but most importantly - legitimized. It will be found or thought up as a "proof" of the fact that anthropophilia can in principle be legalized.

"Do you remember the legend of a self-sacrificing mother who watered her children with children who were dying of thirst?" "And the stories of the ancient gods who ate everything in general - the Romans had it in order!" "Well, the more close Christians, anthropophilia is all right! They still ritually drink blood and eat the flesh of their god. You do not blame the Christian church for something? But who are you, damn you? "The main task of the bacchanalia of this stage is to at least partially eliminate the eating of people from criminal prosecution. At least once, at some historical moment. So it is necessary

After the legitimizing precedent is granted, it becomes possible to move the Overton Window from the territory of the possible to the rational area. This is the third stage. On it the fragmentation of a single problem is completed. "The desire is people genetically inherent, it is in the nature of man" "Sometimes people need to eat, there are insurmountable circumstances" "There are people who want to eat them" "Anthropophiles provoked!" "The forbidden fruit is always sweet" "A free person has the right to decide what to him there is "" Do not hide information and let everyone understand who he is - anthropophilus or anthropophobia "" Is there any harm in anthropophilia? Inevitability of it is not proved. " In the public consciousness, an artificially created "battlefield" for the problem. On the extreme flanks, the scarecrow is placed - special radical supporters and radical opponents of cannibalism appeared.

Real opponents - that is, normal people who do not want to remain indifferent to the problem of cannibalism rastabuirovaniya - try to pack together with bogeys and write down the radical haters. The role of these frightened - actively create the image of crazy psychopaths - aggressive, fascist haters of anthropophilia, calling to burn alive the cannibals, Jews, Communists and Negroes. The presence in the media provides all of the above, in addition to real opponents of legalization. In this scenario, the so-called the anthropophiles remain, as it were, in the middle between the bogeys, on the "territory of the mind," from which, with all the pathos of "sanity and humanity," condemn "fascists of all stripes." "Scientists" and journalists at this stage prove that mankind has eaten each other from time to time, and this is normal. Now the theme of anthropophilia can be translated from the field of rational, to the category of popular. Window Overton moves further. In a good way

To popularize the theme of cannibalism, it is necessary to support it with pop content, matching with historical and mythological personalities, and, if possible, with modern media persons.

Anthropophilia massively penetrates the news and talk show. People are eaten in a wide-screen movie, in lyrics and video clips. One of the methods of popularization is called "Look around!". "Did you not know that one well-known composer is that? .. anthropophilus." "And one well-known Polish scriptwriter - he was anthropophilic all his life, he was even persecuted." "And how many of them there were in psychiatric hospitals! How many millions have been expelled, deprived of citizenship! .. At this stage, the topic being developed is taken to the TOP and it begins to autonomously self-reproduce in mass media, show business and politics.

Another effective method: the essence of the problem is actively blamed at the level of information operators (journalists, television broadcasters, public figures, etc.), cutting off experts' discussions. Then, at a time when everyone was bored and the discussion of the problem was at an impasse, a specially selected professional comes in and says: "Gentlemen, in fact, it's not like that at all. And it's not that, but that's it. And we need to do this and that and that "- and in the meantime gives a very definite direction, the tendentiousness of which is set by the movement of" Windows. " To justify supporters of legalization use humanizing criminals by creating a positive image through non-criminal characteristics. "These are creative people. Well, ate his wife and what? "" They sincerely love their victims. Eats, then loves! "" Anthropophiles have elevated IQ and otherwise they adhere to strict morality. "" The anthropophiles themselves sacrificed, their lives forced "" They were so brought up, "etc. This kind of freaks is the salt of popular talk shows. "We will tell you a tragic love story! He wanted to eat it! And she just wanted to be eaten! Who are we to judge them? Perhaps this is love? Who are you to stand up in love on the way ?! "

By the fifth stage of the Overton window movement, when the topic is warmed up to the possibility to transfer it from the popular category to the sphere of actual politics. Preparation of legislative base begins. Lobbyist groups in power are consolidated and come out of the shadows. Sociological surveys are being published, allegedly confirming the high percentage of supporters of the legalization of cannibalism. Politicians begin to roll out test balls of public statements on the topic of legislative consolidation of this topic. In public consciousness a new dogma is introduced: "prohibition of eating people is forbidden". This is a signature dish of liberalism - tolerance as a taboo prohibition, a ban on correcting and preventing devious devastation for society.

During the last stage of the Window movement from the category of "popular" to "actual politics" the society is already broken. The liveliest part of it still somehow will resist the legislative consolidation of not so long ago unimaginable things. But in general, society is already broken. It has already agreed with its defeat. Laws have been enacted, norms of human existence have been changed (destroyed), then this theme will inevitably reach the schools and kindergartens, and this means that the next generation will grow up altogether without a chance of survival.

The Window of Opportunities described by Overton most easily moves in a tolerant society. In a society that has no ideals, and as a consequence, 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 it in the magazine? Sing a song? 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. There is nothing sacred. There are no sacred concepts, the very discussion of which is forbidden, and their dirty obmusolivanie - immediately suppressed. All this is not present. And what is there? There is a so-called freedom of speech, turned into freedom of dehumanization. Before our eyes, one by one, they remove the framework that protected society from the abyss of self-destruction. Now the road is open.

Do you think that alone you can not change anything? You are absolutely right, one person can not devil alone. But personally, you have to remain human. A person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what one can not do is make people united by a common idea. Look around.

Anna Nenasheva

PS: By the way. More recently, during the filming in India of the next release of the program "Believer" on CNN, there was a scandal. A representative of the Hindu sect, which practices cannibalism, suggested that the host of the transfer of Reza Aslan try part of the human brain. Journalist did not refuse, to "show respect for someone else's culture." And then he at all drank an alcoholic drink from a human skull ...


Vespa on social networks

Materials that you will not find on the site

G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!