Relatively recently, articles began to appear that set out the essence of one of the theories on the management of society. This methodology, named after the researcher who created it, is called the Overton Window. The theory quite fully and reasonably describes the methods of social and informational management of people and the whole society, which have been used in the last century by the Euro-Atlantic center of world power. The main goal of such actions is the dehumanization, corruption, depersonalization and dehumanization of all social strata of the population.
"Overton windows" - what is this method? It is a political theory that describes the boundaries of ideas that can be accepted by society. The existing framework of possibilities is a kind of window.
This theory indicates the political viability of an idea. It turns out that she is capable of winning the minds of people not at all at the request of any statesman. Any idea will be approved by society only if it enters the "window". At the same time, it will be on the list of those concepts that will be accepted by the people at a given point in time. Subsequently, politicians will be able to adhere to such ideas without fear of accusations of extremism or radicalism. The shift of this “window” occurs in the event of a change in public opinion and the adoption by the population of one or another politician.
The American sociologist Joseph Overton studied and presented the window of opportunity for introducing immorally unacceptable phenomena to public opinion in 1990. During this period, he served as vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
"Overton Window" - what is this impact on public opinion? This is not brainwashing at all, but more sophisticated technology. What makes it effective is the systemic consistent application, as well as the veil of the victim of the fact of influence.
For example, humanity has already accepted the gay subculture, as well as their right to adopt children, marry and promote their sexual orientation. At the same time, there is talk that all this is the natural course of things. However, this is not at all the case, as Joseph Overton convincingly proved to us in 1990. The author revealed a whole technology that contributes to the destruction of public institutions, resulting in the legalization of immoral ideas. And in order to achieve desired result, you need to do only five steps, passing 5 "Overton Windows". At the same time, society will first begin to condemn any idea that is unacceptable to it, transferring it to the rank of appropriate, and then come to terms with a new legislative act, which will enshrine the right to exist until quite recently something unthinkable.
Consider the Overton Window using the example of cannibalism. Today, the idea of legalizing the rights of citizens to eat each other is completely unimaginable. Propaganda of this phenomenon is simply impossible to deploy at the moment. Society will certainly protest this terrible act. However, if Overton Windows are used, what will it give those who wish to promote this idea? According to the theory of the American sociologist, the solution to such a problem is currently at the zero stage, which is called "Unthinkable". The idea can be realized only after going through all the stages of windows of opportunity. The method works flawlessly.
This theory, which entangles the minds of people with lies, is popularly told by Nikita Mikhalkov in his creative program "Besogon". “Overton windows”, in his opinion, often turn out to be the screen of our TV, through which anything can penetrate.
An American sociologist describes actions that allow society to lead to the legalization of absolutely any idea. The Overton Window technology is not proposed by the author. He just described existing methods, the application of which leads to the desired result. In other words, Overton is presenting a technology that is already in operation and that could be more effective than a thermonuclear discharge.
The initial stage of such a theory as the Overton Window - what is this stage, what is its goal? To get the desired result in the first stage, you should:
Eliminate the taboo on the discussion of a particular phenomenon;
Make sure that the idea becomes known to a wide range of members of society;
Bring the discussion of this phenomenon to the ordinary;
Raise the idea to the status of an important universal topic.
To achieve this goal, one or another phenomenon is introduced into the information sphere as a radically defiant one. This position of the idea will attract the attention of society to it.
Further, the spontaneous discussion of the topic will gradually turn into an organized one. The "unthinkable" will gradually move into the realm of the "radical". Unnoticed by society, this or that phenomenon, which is in the zone of prohibition, will be promoted by information sources on a specific example. At the same time, a seemingly good goal will be set - to find out whether this phenomenon is so terrible and why it cannot be done? What follows is the conclusion that some people do just that and are happy.
Cannibalism may well “unwind” the theory of the “Overton Window”. To take it from the unthinkable to the realm of the radical, an ethnological symposium could be convened on such a topic as "The Exotic Rites of the Polynesian Tribes." Here, scientists will talk in detail about such a phenomenon as cannibalism, which will be the initial movement of the theory called the Overton Window. This stage, at which there will be a revision of the existing public opinion, will make it possible to change the irreconcilable attitude to a positive one. The goal of the first stage has been achieved. The topic was introduced into circulation and the taboo on its discussion was destroyed.
This theory has its vivid examples in our country as well. They tried to move the “Overton Window” by asking a question about the likelihood of the surrender of Leningrad in order to avoid the death of a large number of people, as well as by comparing the Russian Olympic champion with an SS officer. These are typical cases of the first stage of this theory, when the topic is removed from the forbidden zone. If the society agrees to take such a step, then it will pass the rest of the stages automatically. Fortunately, the Russians did not discuss the topics he proposed, considering them clearly blasphemous.
How does the Overton Window unfold next? The theory considers the next stage of action as a transition from "Radical" to "Acceptable". Among the main goals of this stage is the substitution of previously forbidden concepts, in which terms previously rejected by society are translated into emotionally neutral euphemisms. At the same time, the sinful phenomenon changes its original meaning. It is given a name that gives a positive semantic coloring. It provides information about any historical figure or events affecting in one way or another a previously unacceptable phenomenon. Such actions are not justified, but still part of society is inspired by the idea that everyone has sins.
One can also give examples of how the process of legalizing cannibalism would develop in the future. The "Overton Window" will continue to move with the continued citation of scientists. This leads to the idea that those who do not want to discuss this topic are not drawn to knowledge. He can be recognized as a hypocrite or a hypocrite. In parallel, cannibalism should be given some elegant name. This point is very important for the legalization of an unthinkable idea. As a result, cannibalism no longer exists. There is, for example, anthropophagy. If this definition is soon considered offensive, it will quickly be replaced by another.
The purpose of inventing new terms is to avoid the essence of the problem and its designation. At the same time, the form is separated from the word and its content, which deprives ideological opponents of weighty arguments.
Simultaneously with the game of names, a reference precedent is being created. A mythological, historical, actual or simply invented case is pulled out into the light, which must necessarily be legitimized. It will be found as indispensable "proof" that, in principle, anthropophagy can be legalized. For example, we can recall the legend of a mother who, saving her children from thirst, gave them their own blood to drink. And the ancient gods! They generally ate everything. The Romans considered this phenomenon normal and natural! By citing such arguments, the authors of the bacchanalia pursue the goal of making cannibalism criminally unpunishable. Even if it happened only once and at some specific historical moment.
The psychology of the Overton Window at this stage is aimed at:
Approval of the idea of the natural and natural nature of the phenomenon under discussion;
Elimination of attitude to the topic under discussion as absolutely unacceptable.
On the this stage there is a transition from "Acceptable" to "Reasonable". The problem, being previously integral, is divided into many types. Some of them are terrible, while others are quite acceptable and cute. At the same time, society is presented with many different points of view on each type of problem, which are expressed by its quite respectable members.
At this stage, the Overton Window movement in relation to cannibalism can be imagined simultaneously with the appearance in the media of such statements:
The anthropophiles were provoked;
The desire to be a cannibal is inherent in man by nature;
The forbidden fruit is especially sweet, etc.
At the same time, in public consciousness fight is created. Normal people who are not indifferent to the problem raised immediately receive the status of radical haters. At the same time, journalists and scientists are proving to the whole society that mankind throughout the history of its existence from time to time fed on each other, and that this is quite a normal phenomenon.
The purpose of this step of the Overton Window movement is to move the problem from the "Reasonable" stage to the "Popular" stage. At this stage:
Information is being disseminated about the mass nature of the phenomenon under discussion;
The thought of the real presence of this problem is introduced into;
Are given concrete examples with well-known faces that do not cause rejection among the population.
Thus, the fourth stage is distinguished by the creation of the popularity of the phenomenon in question. This is where statistics come into play. The media give figures about the growth in popularity of the idea, while talking about those people who are involved in this phenomenon, and at the same time are attractive not only in their behavior, but also in appearance.
How can cannibalism be promoted? Anthropophagy will be massively introduced into talk shows and news. People will be eaten in movies, video clips, and songs sung by singers. In this case, you can apply one of the popularization techniques, which is called "Look around." Information will appear in the media about belonging to anthropophagi or the director, as well as data on the presence of millions of cannibal compatriots in psychiatric hospitals.
At this stage, the topic being developed will enter the TOP and begin to self-produce in politics, semi-business, etc. In order to justify the supporters of the legalization of this horrific idea, criminals will be humanized. They will be assigned a positive image, having found the necessary character traits. They can say about such people that they have an increased IQ, etc.
At this step, the problem is transferred from the “Popular” stage to the “Political” one. In doing so, the following objectives are pursued:
Translation of the phenomenon into a political channel;
Declaring the denial of this idea as a violation of human rights;
The introduction into the minds of people of a negative attitude towards the denial of the phenomenon under consideration.
The Overton Window movement at this stage becomes possible as a result of numerous social surveys, as a result of which the phenomenon will be interpreted as a socio-political one. At the same time, an idea that previously seemed unacceptable is beginning to be included in the agenda for discussing issues that require a political or legal settlement. At the same time, the essence of the problem will be presented to society as the need to protect the “minority” that is under threat.
In the last phase of the Overton Window movement, the legal framework is being prepared. Society at this point is already defeated. Only the most advanced part of it will a little resist the elevation to the rank of law of things that were quite recently unthinkable. However, society as a whole is already broken and in agreement with its defeat.
As a result of passing through all five stages of the theory called "Overton Window", humanity loses its inner harmony. Instead, people have only internal torment and disputes. The one who plants this technology does not aim to make everyone happy. The movement of the "window" is made to obtain the desired vector in the development of society. People at the same time begin to lose touch with their culture and roots. They become vulnerable and callous. An example of this is the high level of suicides that is observed in this. That is why we can say that all of the above - real technology destruction. The Overton Window dehumanizes people, leading them to death.
You can resist the influence of false ideas by refusing to be "normal" everywhere and always. Only by preserving our own individuality, we will not allow to give control over ourselves into the wrong hands. The customs, customs and culture of the ancestors, which it must carefully preserve and protect, will allow society not to fall under mass manipulations. These eternal values will allow to preserve the individuality of each person. At the same time, it is not at all necessary to follow long-gone traditions. Enough to respect and keep them. And it is worth remembering that the technology described by Overton is most easily applied in a tolerant society where there are no ideals, there is no clear distinction between evil and good.
Have you ever heard of the "Overton Window"? If not, then I recommend reading this technology of legalizing 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. Like child euthanasia, by the way.
Joseph Overton described how ideas that were completely alien to society were raised from the cesspool of public contempt, washed away and finally legislated.
According to the Overton 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, or attempted to be legislated. 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 per se, but more subtle technologies. What makes them effective is their consistent, systematic application and invisibility to the victim society of the very fact of 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 come to terms with a new law that consolidates and protects the once unthinkable.
Take for example something completely unimaginable. For example, cannibalism, that is, the idea of legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other. A tough enough example?
But it is obvious to everyone that right now (2014) there is no way to launch cannibalism propaganda - society will rear up. This situation means that the problem of legalization of cannibalism is at the zero stage of the window of opportunity. This stage, according to Overton's theory, is called "Unthinkable". Let's now simulate how this unthinkable will be implemented, having gone through all the stages of the window of opportunity.
TECHNOLOGY
Once again, Overton described the TECHNOLOGY that allows you to legalize absolutely any idea.
Note! He did not propose a concept, he 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 to destroy human communities, such technology can be more effective than a thermonuclear charge.
HOW BOLD IT IS!
The topic of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. It is undesirable to discuss this topic either in the press, or, even more so, in a decent company. So far, this is an unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. Accordingly, the first movement of the Overton Window is to move the theme of cannibalism from the realm of the unthinkable to the realm of the radical.
We do have freedom of speech.
Well, why not talk about cannibalism?
Scientists are generally supposed to talk about everything in a row - there are no forbidden topics for scientists, they are supposed to study everything. And since such a thing, let's convene 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 it is possible to talk about cannibalism in a substantive way 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. This ensures the transition from an irreconcilably negative attitude of society to a more positive attitude.
Simultaneously with the pseudo-scientific discussion, some kind of "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 who call for burning at the stake not like them." But about scarecrows a little lower. To begin with, it is enough to publish stories about what British scientists think about eating human flesh and some radical scumbags of a different nature.
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?
At this stage, we continue to quote "scientists". After all, it is impossible to turn away from knowledge? About cannibalism. Anyone who refuses to discuss this should be branded as a hypocrite and a hypocrite.
Condemning hypocrisy, 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 the word with the letter “Ka”.
Attention! Creating a euphemism is very important point. To legalize an unthinkable idea, it is necessary to change its true name.
No more cannibalism.
Now it is 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 the word from its content, to deprive their ideological opponents of the language. Cannibalism turns into anthropophagy, and then into anthropophilia, just as a criminal changes names and passports.
In parallel with the game of names, a supporting precedent is being created - historical, mythological, actual or simply invented, but most importantly - legitimized. It will be found or invented as "proof" that anthropophilia can be legalized in principle.
“Remember the legend of the selfless mother who made thirsty children drink her blood?”
“And the stories of ancient gods who ate everyone in general - among the Romans it was in the order of things!”
“Well, the Christians who are closer to us, especially, with anthropophilia, everything is in perfect order! They still ritually drink the blood and eat the flesh of their god. You don't blame me for anything. christian church? 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 IT SHOULD
Once a legitimating precedent is 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 provoked!"
"Forbidden Fruit Is Always Sweet"
"A free man has the right to decide what he eats"
“Do not hide information and let everyone understand who he is - an anthropophile or anthropophobe”
“Is there any harm in anthropophilia? Its inevitability has not been proven.
A "battlefield" for the problem is artificially created in the public mind. Scarecrows are placed on the extreme flanks - in a special way appeared radical supporters and radical opponents of cannibalism.
Real opponents - that is, normal people who do not want to remain indifferent to the problem of banning cannibalism - they try 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 for cannibals, Jews, communists and blacks to be burned alive. Presence in the media is provided by all of the above, except for real opponents of legalization.
In this situation, the so-called. anthropophiles remain, as it were, in the middle between the scarecrows, in 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 realm of the rational into the category of the popular. The Overton window moves on.
IN A GOOD SENSE
To popularize the topic of cannibalism, it is necessary to support it with pop content, matching it with historical and mythological figures, and, if possible, with modern media personalities.
Anthropophilia is permeating the news and talk shows en masse. People are eaten in wide release 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 was an anthropophile all his life, he was even persecuted.”
“And how many of them were in psychiatric hospitals! How many millions have been expelled, deprived of citizenship!.. By the way, how do you like Lady Gaga's new clip "Eat me, baby"?
At this stage, the topic being developed is brought to the TOP and it begins to autonomously reproduce itself in the mass media, show business and politics.
Another effective reception: the essence of the problem is actively chattered at the level of information operators (journalists, TV presenters, social activists, etc.), cutting off specialists from the discussion.
Then, at the moment when everyone has already become bored and the discussion of the problem has reached a dead end, a specially selected professional comes and says: “Gentlemen, in fact, everything is not at all like that. And it's not that, but this. And you 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, they use the humanization of criminals by creating a positive image for them through characteristics that are not associated with a crime.
"This is indeed creative people. Well, he ate his wife, so what?
“They truly love their victims. Eating means loving!”
"Anthropophiles have a high IQ and otherwise have a strict morality"
"Anthropophiles themselves are victims, their life forced"
“They were brought up that way,” etc.
This kind of frills is 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 stand in the way of love?!”
WE ARE POWER HERE
The fifth stage of the Overton Window movement is reached when the topic is warmed up to the point of being able to transfer it from the category of popular to the sphere of current politics.
Preparations begin legislative framework. Lobby groups in power are consolidating and coming out of the shadows. Sociological surveys are being published, allegedly confirming the high percentage of supporters of the legalization of cannibalism. Politicians are starting 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 is the signature dish of liberalism - tolerance as a ban on taboos, a ban on correction and prevention of deviations that are detrimental to society.
During the last stage of the Window's movement from the category of "popular" to "actual politics", society is already broken. The most vital part of it will still somehow resist the legislative consolidation of things that were not so long ago still unthinkable. But in general, society is already broken. It has already accepted its defeat.
Laws have been passed, the norms of human existence have been changed (destroyed), then echoes of this topic will inevitably reach schools and kindergartens, which means that the next generation will grow up without any chance of survival at all. So it was with the legalization of pederasty (now they demand to call themselves gays). Now, before our eyes, Europe is legalizing incest and child euthanasia.
____________________
Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003), Senior Vice President of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Died in a plane crash. He formulated a model for changing the representation of a problem in public opinion, posthumously called the Overton Window.
Ulrich Schneider
loaded
Part 2: How to counter the Overton Window!!!
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 the Overton Window. The details of this were discussed in the material “Destruction Technologies. Overton Window ", then a visual 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.
A reader of the nstarikov.ru blog, Evgeny Khavrenko, wrote an article on how to resist the Overton Window technology.
How to counter the Overton Window
“The Overton Window technology is based on the basic weaknesses of almost any person. The "charm" of this technology is that it works even with its awareness. Usually manipulation stops working as soon as its true meaning is revealed. In this case, the impact on the subconscious arises through the basic needs of a person.
I would describe the main levers of pressure on a person in this way:
1. Tolerance.
2. Euphemism.
3. Belonging to the pack.
5. Legal means correct.
"Overton windows" are based on the basic human needs, which in Maslow's pyramid occupy places from 2 to 4 steps.
This is Maslow's Pyramid.
Physiological needs: hunger, thirst, sex drive, etc.
Need for security: feeling confident, getting rid of fear and failure.
The need for belonging and love.
The need for respect: achievement of success, approval, recognition.
Cognitive needs: to know, to be able, to explore.
Aesthetic needs: harmony, order, beauty.
The need for self-actualization: the realization of one's goals, abilities, the development of one's own personality.
Due to the fact that needs from 2 to 4 are almost never fully and forever satisfied, they easily become the object of manipulation against 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 fits those people who are ready to put up with views that are opposite to them, or rather, the imposition of these views on them as their own. It is the need for belonging and respect that makes us abandon our views, for fear of causing aggression and discontent in the opponent.
Euphemism is an obligatory component for overcoming internal resistance. Roughly speaking, this is a saving wand that helps to establish an internal balance between one's own values and completely opposite values imposed from the outside. For example, in our culture, the rude word “Pederast” (from other Greek παις - “child”, “boy”, and ἐραστής - “loving”, that is, “loving boys”) is replaced by a more neutral word “gay”. And the phrases “My friend is gay” and “My friend is a homosexual” have completely different emotional load.
Belonging to the pack is a combination of needs - security, belonging to society and the need for respect. Every person speaking to the public, making a presentation, making a toast in big company, knows how difficult it is sometimes to endure these few minutes when all eyes are turned to him. If you have such an experience, please remember it. 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 acts.
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, "Authority" willingly throws me a saving wand, taking responsibility for itself. At the same time, it is enough for me to have the most general ideas about the "Authority" itself. There is absolutely no talk of finding out information about the person himself or society, we are just glad that he (it) has taken (o) the unbearable burden of our torment. AT recent times behind the "Authority" is not even personalities. More and more often we hear - “scientists have discovered ...., psychologists say ...., the side has declared ...”, etc.
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 in myself for what remains not characteristic of my personality. The more I blame others for being backward or provocative, the stronger the voice of contradiction that resides within me. The famous psychiatrist K.G. Jung believed that fanaticism is a sign of repressed doubt. A person who is truly convinced of his rightness is absolutely calm and can discuss the opposite point of view without a shadow of indignation. In the case of planting other people's values, complete conviction does not occur, doubt has to be suppressed at the expense of persuading others. legitimacy gives full right do so.
Consequences of the Overton Window Technology
The most terrible consequence of this technology is that a person loses harmony, getting endless internal disputes and torments in its place. 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, the mass of people are forced to maintain the illusion of accepting other people's values. People are becoming 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 high level suicide in developed countries. People who have high comfort do not begin to feel happier by paying for it with humanity.
My friend, who grew up on Hollywood films and glossy magazines, always dreamed of having a big Vacation home with double garage pool and wine cellar. On the way to this goal, he had to work hard, endure heart attack and oncology, with which he is still struggling. At the same time, constant employment for 12 hours a day alienated him from his family. The wife, offended but not daring to reproach him, focused on the children, trying to get there the warmth that she lacked so much. Children, without the control of the father, feeling the power over the 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 was the price he paid for high comfort and social status, and energy was replaced by disappointment. social status, social recognition, comfort and security in themselves do not lead us to our happiness, and are not mandatory attributes of it. They are and should remain a means to an end, not the end itself, and disappointment comes when there is emptiness behind them.
Confrontation of the Overton Window technology
First of all, you can resist by giving up trying to be “normal” always and everywhere. The moment the "individual" is replaced by the "normal", we automatically transfer our own control into the wrong hands. At best, we strive to be convenient for others, and at worst, we fall under targeted manipulation. It is the culture, customs, customs and foundations of the ancestors that help to find their individuality. Integration of this into modern life It helps to stay connected with your own heritage. I do not urge to blindly follow old traditions, but only to remember, preserve and respect them.
The concept of tolerance should be used 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.
Belonging to a pack is difficult to fight, and it is not necessary. It is important to understand where my pack really is and to separate it with boundaries or frames. For example: try to rebuild the phrase - "Our society is not so democratic as to allow same-sex marriages" taking into account your interests - "Democracy is the will of the people and perhaps same-sex marriages are not so suitable for our society to become part of our culture."
For example, if you see a specialist speaking on TV about whom you have no information other than what is listed below during the presentation, just think about what he said. Would your opinion change if a neighbor or colleague said the same thing? If the authority becomes the "Captain Obvious", then what is the essence of his speech? Repeat with a smart face what you said 20 minutes ago with your employees 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 legitimacy be accepted as the highest recognition? I think that this question in our state will have an unambiguous answer. I will only add my observation, which dispelled my personal myth about the state as a form of concern for people. I chose a non-political example on purpose. When Poland joined the EU in 2009, public sector wages fell sharply compared to food prices. The news showed a report about the strike of border guards. It is quite clear that people who are serving cannot simply not go to work. They acted differently - they began to carry out all the procedures indicated in the instructions. It would seem - great! People finally do what is required 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 to the Overton Window technology, both at the state level and personally, for each individual. The whole point of this article is contained in the closing phrase of Joseph P. Overton, “But personally you must remain human. A person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what one cannot do, people united by a common idea will do.
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 the Overton Window. The details of this were considered in the material "" , then a visual lesson of this inhuman technique was presented by ..., who killed and dismembered the giraffe Marius in the form of a show and even an anatomical theater for children.
Blog site reader Yevgeny Khavrenko wrote an article on how to resist the Overton Window technology.
“The Overton Window technology is based on the basic weaknesses of almost any person. The "charm" of this technology is that it works even with its awareness. Usually manipulation stops working as soon as its true meaning is revealed. In this case, the impact on the subconscious arises through the basic needs of a person.
I would describe the main levers of pressure on a person in this way:
1. Tolerance.
2. Euphemism.
3. Belonging to the pack.
4. Illusion of authority.
5. Legal means right.
"Overton windows" are based on the basic human needs, which in Maslow's pyramid occupy places from 2 to 4 steps.
This is Maslow's Pyramid.
Due to the fact that needs from 2 to 4 are almost never fully and forever satisfied, they easily become the object of manipulation against 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 fits those people who are ready to put up with views that are opposite to them, or rather, the imposition of these views on them as their own. It is the need for belonging and respect that makes us abandon our views, for fear of causing aggression and discontent in the opponent.
Euphemism is an obligatory component link for overcoming internal resistance. Roughly speaking, this is a saving wand that helps to establish an internal balance between one's own values and completely opposite values imposed from the outside. For example, in our culture, the rude word “Pederast” (from the ancient Greek παις - “child”, “boy”, and ἐραστής - “loving”, that is, “loving boys”) is replaced by a more neutral word “gay”. And the phrases “My friend is gay” and “My friend is a homosexual” have completely different emotional load.
Belonging to the pack is a set of needs - security, belonging to society 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 an experience, please remember it. 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 acts.
The illusion of authority again is an opportunity to try on their own views already partly imposed from the outside. If there is a chill of disagreement inside me, "Authority" willingly throws me a saving wand, taking responsibility for itself. At the same time, it is enough for me to have the most general ideas about the “Authority” itself. There is absolutely no talk of finding out information about the person himself or society, we are just glad that he (it) has taken (o) the unbearable burden of our torment. Recently, there are not even personalities behind the "Authority". More and more often we hear - “scientists have discovered ...., psychologists say ...., the side has declared ...”, etc.
legality is the supremacy of accepting alien norms. “From now on, I have the right to reproach others for not agreeing with me". Thus, compensating in myself for what remains not characteristic of my personality. The more I blame others for being backward or provocative, the stronger the voice of contradiction that resides within me. The famous psychiatrist K.G. Jung believed that fanaticism is a sign of repressed doubt. A person who is truly convinced of his rightness is absolutely calm and can discuss the opposite point of view without a shadow of indignation. In the case of planting other people's values, complete conviction does not occur, doubt has to be suppressed at the expense of persuading others. The law gives you the right to do so.
Consequences of the Overton Window Technology
The most terrible consequence of this technology is that a person loses harmony, getting endless internal disputes and torments in its place. 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, the mass of people are forced to maintain the illusion of accepting other people's values. People are becoming 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 who have high comfort do not begin to feel happier by paying for it with humanity.
My friend, who grew up on Hollywood movies and glossy magazines, always dreamed of having a large country house with a two-car garage, a swimming pool and a wine cellar. On the way to this goal, he had to work hard, survive a heart attack and oncology, which he still struggles with. At the same time, constant employment for 12 hours a day alienated him from his family. The wife, offended but not daring to reproach him, focused on the children, trying to get there the warmth that she lacked so much. Children, without the control of the father, feeling the power over the 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 was the price he paid for high comfort and social status, and energy was replaced by disappointment. Social status, social recognition, comfort and security by themselves do not lead us to our happiness, and are not mandatory attributes of it. They are and should remain a means to an end, not the end itself, and disappointment comes when there is emptiness behind them.
Confrontation of the Overton Window technology
First of all, you can resist by giving up trying to be “normal” always and everywhere. The moment the "individual" is replaced by the "normal", we automatically transfer our own control into the wrong hands. At best, we strive to be convenient for others, and at worst, we fall under targeted manipulation. It is the culture, customs, customs and foundations of the ancestors that help to find their individuality. Integrating this into modern life helps keep you connected to your own heritage. I do not urge to blindly follow old traditions, but only to remember, preserve and respect them.
concept tolerance use only as a concept of tolerance, otherwise it is necessary to defend their 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.
FROM belonging to a flock difficult to fight, and not necessary. It is important to understand where my pack really is and to separate it with boundaries or frames. For example: try to rebuild the phrase - “Our society is not so democratic as to allow same-sex marriages” taking into account your interests - “Democracy is the will of the people and perhaps same-sex marriages are not so suitable for our society as to become part of our culture.”
For example, if you see a specialist speaking on TV about whom you have no information other than what is listed below during the presentation, just think about what he said. Would your opinion change if a neighbor or colleague said the same thing? If the authority becomes the "Captain Obvious", then what is the essence of his speech? Repeat with a smart face what you said 20 minutes ago with your employees 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.
Is it worth it legitimacy accept as the highest recognition? I think that this question in our state will have an unambiguous answer. I will only add my observation, which dispelled my personal myth about the state as a form of concern for people. I chose a non-political example on purpose. When Poland joined the EU in 2009, public sector wages fell sharply compared to food prices. The news showed a report about the strike border guards. It is quite clear that people who are serving cannot simply not go to work. They acted differently - they began to carry out all the procedures indicated in the instructions. It would seem - great! People finally do what is required 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 one's own discretion.
I tried to describe the opposition to the Overton Window technology, both at the state level and personally, for each individual. The whole point of this article is contained in the closing phrase of Joseph P. Overton, “But personally you must remain human. A person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what one cannot do, people united by a common idea will do.
Yevgeny Khavrenko.
On January 14, 2014, in the then live "LiveJournal", the user zuhel published a post "Destruction Technology". In it, the author described the allegedly existing method of legalizing in the public consciousness such new phenomena as same-sex marriage and LGBT rights, using the concept of the “Overton window” as an example.
According to Yevgeny Gorzhaltsan, a Muscovite who wrote a post under the nickname zuhel, under the guise of such legalization, society is being “dehumanized”. In a commentary for the Republic, Evgeny noted that the tabooing of social prohibitions, which have been irrevocable for a long time, entails the death of society.
Evgeny Gorzhaltsan is an activist fighting for traditional family values. In 2013, he joined the movement "The Essence of Time" (creator - Sergey Kurginyan) and its "daughter" "Parental All-Russian Resistance". "Resistance" showed opposition to juvenile justice and other "Western" phenomena. And Vladimir Putin, who attended the First Congress of the Parents of Russia, promised to support the initiatives of the activists. By that time, Evgeny, who in the 90s was a correspondent for Kommersant, a special correspondent for Arguments and Facts and a copywriter at BBDO, had already begun cooperation with Kurginyan.
It is interesting that, despite single mentions of the “Overton window” in the Russian media until 2014, unrest on this topic in the media began only after Gorzhaltsan’s post, while in the West the idea of Joseph Overton, presented in numerous publications of the Russian media, took root much earlier. In 2011, Joe Carter, a Christian conservative from the United States, spoke in his material about undermining the cultural values of the nation with the help of the "Overton window". Carter argued his opinion with examples of the legalization of abortion, same-sex marriage and divorce with impunity. Joe was the first to call Overton's theory a "window": Gorzhaltzan copied many of the postulates set out in Carter's materials and adopted the sonorous name of the concept. Eugene even discussed the planned material with the top of the Essence of Time. And the post outlining the points of Overton's theory, which have long been known to the Western reader, really "fired".
In the same 2014, the Pravda-TV portal released material in which the “window” is called “not a theory, not a statement of the creator’s thoughts, but actually a working technology.” Overton himself is practically not mentioned in media publications: they talk about Gorzhaltsan, who wrote the text not about the “window” theory, but about “dying humanity”. Some portals did not bother to study the phenomenon and reprinted Yevgeny's post without cuts (as, for example, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Nakanune.ru, KPRF, Regnum did).
On the example of the theory of the "Overton window" they explained the "death of Europe", the revolution in Ukraine and intra-family conflicts over ideological convictions. The popularity of the concept began to fall after the first peace agreements adopted on the issue of Donbass. In 2016, the theory is paired with a condemnation of the inappropriate attitude to the events of the Great Patriotic War, and in 2017, it justifies the conflict between Mikhail Saakashvili and the leading circles of Ukraine, the struggle in the elections of the chancellor in Germany and the decision of the German Constitutional Court to allow a third, indefinite gender to be indicated in official documents.
Overton's theory can rightfully be considered a universal tool for interpreting and explaining the causes of almost any event. For several years, the concept that came from the West, designed and presented in the form known today by Yevgeny Gorzhaltsan, took root in public discourse. Russian index scientific citation shows that at the moment there are 295 works that consider Overton's theory in a scientific, research way.
The universal concept of introducing any phenomenon into society in five steps appeared in the mid-1990s. Joseph Overton himself was never a sociologist or research fellow. Far-right Republican and public figure, he formulated the theory of the “window of opportunity for influencing public opinion”, which he published on the website of the Mackinac Center, a Republican think tank where he served as vice president. Overton emphasized euphemisms and covering real political ideas with a "beautiful wrapper" that would be favorably received by society.
Joseph himself did not give examples based on cannibalism and sought to make the Republican initiatives more understandable and interesting to American society. Source text Overtone used by various political movements, has changed almost beyond recognition and has become a reason for speculation public opinion. The concept, harmless in fact, has turned into a frightening technology for the masses, overgrown with new metaphors, supposedly explaining the essence of the stated postulates.
Many Russian media have interpreted the Overton Window as an attack on public morality. “A war has been declared against morality, social norms, and the traditional family,” wrote Elizaveta Kvasnyuk, author of the What is good portal. Nikita Mikhalkov, who read in the Besogon program full text post Gorzhaltsana, announced the "Overton Window" - an inhumane interference in the life of society. In the same program, he urged to defend with all his might against "technologies for the legalization of sin." The aforementioned US colleague of Mikhalkov, Christian fundamentalist Joe Carter, published two articles describing the "Overton Window" as "a step-by-step introduction of antisocial phenomena into any society." The first was called "How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps", the second - "How to Legalize Pedophilia in 5 Easy Steps". It would not be superfluous to recall that in the original "Overton window" neither pedophilia nor the destruction of culture was discussed, of course.
In the works of students of various economic universities (the work of USUE student A. B. Goryacheva is taken as an example), the “Overton window” is described as a “zombie” theory. “The denial of the phenomenon [popularized by political figures] is proclaimed a direct denial of human rights,” writes Goryacheva, who calls the past “five stages of Overton” a society “losing its cultural orientation.” The imposition of certain ideas on society in the era of information wars seems to be a fairly feasible action.
Political scientist Ekaterina Shulman calls Overton's theory (in the form in which the concept exists in society) a kind of "magical thinking". The fact is that in today's society, oversaturated with information, it becomes extremely difficult to impose something. The vast abundance of materials different direction makes the task of the conspirators pure fiction. However, this does not prevent all sorts of politicians and the media for the sake of hype, clickbait and mobilizing supporters from using overseas "horror" with frightening enthusiasm. "People pulling the strings", "the Dulles plan" and other arsenal of conspiracy theorists are still kept afloat by their efforts.
Victor Vakhstein, professor of sociology, calls the "Overton window" a paranoia that has nothing to do with a real scientific concept.
This is opposed by groups adhering to conspiracy theories, who believe that the development of society is necessarily led by a certain ruler, who is preparing the coming changes. The beliefs of conspiracy theorists are questioned by historians, who note that in the past of any country one can find clear examples of how society prepared itself for changes. An example is the Decembrist movements in Russia, which stretched over a period of several decades and largely provoked further revolutionary moods. The ideas of the Decembrists were passed on in the circle of enlightened figures of the 19th century, who, having come to a common vision of the future state, tried to change the political realities that existed then (just subordinate to the power of one person) towards more humane ones. Historical examples most clearly prove the inconsistency of the "conspiracy theory" that Overton's concept has become after three decades and thousands of editions of the original text.
