Destruction technology

All progressive humanity, we are told, has naturally embraced gays, their subculture, their right to marry, adopt children, and promote their sexual orientation in schools and kindergartens. We are told that this is the natural course of things.

We're lied to.

The lie about the natural course of things was refuted by the American sociologist Joseph Overton, who described the technology of changing the attitude of society to once fundamental issues for this society.

Read this description and see how homosexuality and same-sex marriage are legalized. The legalization of pedophilia and incest will be completed in Europe in the coming years. So is child euthanasia, by the way.

What else can you pull out of there into our world using the technology described by Overton?

It works smoothly.

s***
Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003), senior vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He died in a plane crash. He formulated a model of changing the representation of the problem in public opinion, posthumously called the Overton Window.
s***

Joseph Overton described how ideas completely alien to society were raised from the garbage can of public contempt, washed away, and finally legislated.

According to Overton’s window of opportunity, for every idea or problem in society, there is a window of opportunity. Within this window, the idea may or may not be widely discussed, openly supported, propagandized, and tried to legislate. The window is moved, thereby changing the fan of possibilities, from the stage of “inconceivable”, that is, completely alien to public morality, completely rejected to the stage of “actual politics”, that is, already widely discussed, accepted by mass consciousness and enshrined in laws.

This is not brainwashing per se, and the technology is more subtle. Effective them make consistent, systematic application and invisibility for society-victims of the very fact of impact.

Below, I will examine how, step by step, society begins to discuss something unacceptable, then consider it appropriate, and finally comes to terms with a new law that enshrines and protects the once unthinkable.

Let's take for example something completely unimaginable. Cannibalism is the idea of legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other. Is that a tough enough example?

But it is obvious to everyone that right now (2014) there is no possibility to develop propaganda of cannibalism - society will stand on its own. 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 realized by passing through all stages of the window of opportunity.

Technology

Overton described a technology that allows you to legalize absolutely any idea.

Pay attention! He did not propose a concept, he did not formulate his thoughts in a certain way - he described a working technology. That is, a sequence of actions, the execution of which invariably leads to the desired result. As a weapon to destroy human communities, such technology could be more effective than a thermonuclear charge.

How brave!

The topic of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. It is undesirable to discuss this topic either in the press or, especially, in decent company. So far this is an unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. Accordingly, the first movement of Overton’s Window is to shift the theme of cannibalism from the unthinkable to the radical.

We have freedom of speech.

Well, why not talk about cannibalism?

Scientists are generally supposed to talk about everything - there are no forbidden topics for scientists, they are supposed to study everything. And if this is the case, we will convene an ethnological symposium on the topic “Exotic rites of the tribes of Polynesia”. We will discuss the history of the subject, introduce it into scientific circulation and get the fact of an authoritative statement about cannibalism.

You see, it turns out that you can talk about cannibalism substantively and, as it were, remain within the limits of scientific respectability.

Overton's window has already moved. That is, a revision of positions has already been indicated. This ensures a transition from an irreconcilably negative attitude of society to a more positive attitude.

Simultaneously with the quasi-scientific discussion, a "Society of Radical Cannibals" must necessarily appear. And let it be presented only on the Internet - radical cannibals will be noticed and quoted in all the necessary media.

First of all, this is another statement. And secondly, the shocking scumbags of such a special genesis are needed to create the image of a radical bogeyman. They will be “bad cannibals” in opposition to another bogeyman – “fascists who call for the burning of people other than themselves.” But the bogeys down. To begin with, it is enough to publish stories about what British scientists think about eating human beings and some radical scumbags of a different nature.

The result of the first movement of the Overton Window: an unacceptable topic was introduced into circulation, taboos were desacralized, the unambiguousness of the problem was destroyed - "gradations of gray" were created.

Why wouldn't you?

The next step is to move the Window further and shift the theme of cannibalism from the radical realm to the realm of the possible.

At this stage, we continue to quote “scientists”. Can’t you turn away from knowledge? Cannibalism. Anyone who refuses to discuss this should be branded a prude and a hypocrite.

Condemning bigotry, it is necessary to come up with an elegant name for cannibalism. So that all sorts of fascists would not dare to label dissidents with the word “Ka.”

Attention! Creating a euphemism is a very important point. To legalize an unthinkable idea, it is necessary to replace its original name.

No more cannibalism.

Now this 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 its ideological opponents of language. Cannibalism becomes anthropophagy and then anthropophilia, just as a criminal changes names and passports.

In parallel with the game of names, a reference precedent is created - historical, mythological, actual or simply fictional, but most importantly - legitimized. It will be found or invented as "proof" that anthropophilia can be legitimized in principle.

“Remember the legend of a selfless mother who gave blood to thirsty children? ?

And the stories of the ancient gods, who ate everyone in a row - with the Romans this was the order of things! ?

“Well, the Christians closest to us, especially with anthropophilia, are all right!” They still ritually drink blood and eat the flesh of their god. You're not blaming the Christian church, are you? Who the hell are you?

The main task of bacchanalia of this stage is to at least partially remove the eating of people from criminal prosecution. At least once, at some historical moment.

So should I.

Once a legitimizing precedent is provided, it is possible to move the Overton Window from the territory of the possible to the realm of the rational.

This is stage three. 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!"
The forbidden fruit is always sweet.
“A free man has the right to decide what he eats.”
Do not hide the information and let everyone understand whether 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” for a problem is artificially created. On the extreme flanks, scarecrows are placed - specially 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 cannibalism - are trying to pack together with scarecrows and write down as radical haters. The role of these bogeys is to actively create the image of crazy psychopaths - aggressive, fascist haters of anthropophilia, calling for the burning alive of cannibals, Jews, communists and blacks. Media presence is provided to all of these, except for the real opponents of legalization.

In this situation, the so-called anthropophiles themselves remain as if in the middle between bogeymen, on the “territory of reason”, from which, with all the pathos of “sanity and humanity”, they condemn “fascists of all stripes.”

“Scientists” and journalists at this stage prove that humanity has eaten each other from time to time throughout its history, and that’s normal. Now the subject of anthropophilia can be translated from the realm of rationality into the category of popular. Overton's window moves on.

Good point.

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

Anthropophilia is infiltrating news and talk shows en masse. People are eaten in wide-screen movies, in song lyrics and video clips.

One of the methods of popularization is called “Look around!”

Didn’t you know that one famous composer was an anthropophile?

And one well-known Polish screenwriter – all his life was an anthropophile, he was even persecuted. ?

“And how many of them were in mental hospitals! How many millions have been expelled, stripped of citizenship! What do you think of Lady Gaga’s new song “Eat Me, Baby?”

At this stage, the topic being developed is brought to the TOP and it begins to independently reproduce itself in mass media, show business and politics.

Another effective technique: the essence of the problem is actively shuffled at the level of information operators (journalists, TV hosts, social activists, etc.), cutting off specialists from the discussion.

Then, at a time when everyone was bored and the discussion of the problem was deadlocked, a specially selected professional comes and says: “Gentlemen, in fact, everything is not so at all.” And it's not that, it's this. And one must do such and such, and in the meantime gives a very definite direction, the tendentiousness of which is set by the Window movement.

To justify the supporters of legalization, they use the humanization of criminals by creating a positive image through non-crime characteristics.

“These are creative people. So you ate your wife and what?

“They genuinely love their victims. Eating means he loves!

Anthropophiles have an elevated IQ and otherwise adhere to strict morals.

Anthropophiles are the victims, their lives forced.

"They were raised like that," etc.

This kind of twist is the salt of popular talk shows.

“We will tell you a tragic love story! He wanted to eat her! She just wanted to be eaten! Who are we to judge them? Could it be love? Who are you to stand in the way of love?

We're here.

The fifth stage of the Overton Window movement is moved when the topic is heated up to the opportunity to transfer it from the category of popular to the sphere of actual politics.

The legislative framework is being prepared. Lobbyist groups in power are consolidating and coming out of the shadows. Sociological polls allegedly confirm a high percentage of supporters of the legalization of cannibalism. Politicians are starting to roll test balls of public statements on the topic of legislative consolidation of this topic. A new dogma is 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 the prevention of deviations that are harmful to society.

During the last stage of the Window movement from the category of “popular” to “relevant politics”, society is already broken. The living part of it will somehow resist the legislative consolidation of not so long ago still unthinkable things. But in general, society is already broken. He has already accepted his defeat.

Laws have been adopted, the norms of human existence have been changed (destroyed), then this topic will inevitably reach schools and kindergartens, which means that the next generation will grow up with no chance of survival at all. This was the case with the legalization of pederasty (now they demand to call themselves gay). Europe is now legalizing incest and child euthanasia.

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.

You want to talk about your mother being a whore? Would you like to publish a report on this in a journal? Sing a song. To prove after all that being a whore is normal and even necessary? This is the technology described above. It relies on permissiveness.

No taboo.

Nothing is sacred.

There are no sacred concepts, the very discussion of which is forbidden, and their dirty muzzling is immediately suppressed. None of that. What is it?

There is so-called freedom of speech, converted into freedom of dehumanization. Before our eyes, one by one, the frameworks that protected society from the abyss of self-destruction are being removed. Now the road is open.

You think you can't make a difference alone?

You're right, a man can't do a damn thing alone.

But personally, you must remain human. A person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what one cannot do is people united by a common idea. Look around you.

Source: grareporter.livejournal.com/1103513.html