(By Евгений ГОРЖАЛЦАН)
Ложь о естественном ходе вещей опроверг американский социолог Джозеф Овертон, описавший технологию изменение отношения общества к некогда принципиальным для этого общества вопросам.
Прочитайте это описание и станет понятно, как легализуют гомосексуализм и однополые браки. Станет совершенно очевидно, что работа по легализации педофилии и инцеста будет завершена в Европе уже в ближайшие годы. Как и детская эвтаназия, кстати.
Что ещё можно вытащить оттуда в наш мир, используя технологию, описанную Овертоном?
Она работает безотказно.
* * *
старший вице-президент центра общественой политики
Overton Window: A technology of destruction
As we are told, the entire
humanity absolutely "naturally" "embraced" g-ys, their
subculture, their right to "marry", to adopt children and
propagandize their sexual orientation in schools and kindergartens. We
as though all this is a natural course of things.
However an American sociologist
Joseph Overton rebuffs this
lie about "a natural course of things". It is he who described a
technology how to change a social perception of issues which sometimes
were crucial for a society.
Read his description – and you will
understand how activists
legalize homosexuality and same sex "marriage". It's getting obvious,
that legalization of pedophilia and incest in
What else could be dragged into our
world resorting to the
technology explained by Overton?
* * *
Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003), a senior vice-president of the Mackinac center of social policies, died in an airplane crash. He formulated a model of changing a social perception about a certain issue, which was called in his name posthumously.
Овертон описал, как
совершенно чуждые обществу идеи были подняты из помойного бака
презрения, отмыты и, в конце концов, законодательно закреплены.
Joseph Overton had described how ideas totally repellent for a society were retrieved from the social sewage, whitewashed from disdain, and finally legalized.
According to the Window of possibilities by Overton, for each idea or issue in a society there exists its particular window of possible actions. Depending on the width of this window they can or cannot widely discuss the idea, or openly support it, or propagandize, or try to legalize. They keep shifting this window in the desired direction, and in so doing they change the spectrum of the possibilities from a stage "unthinkable" (i.e. absolutely unacceptable for social moral) to a stage of usual politic (i.e. acceptable for wide discussion) to a legal actions ending with the laws on the books.
It something finer than mere brain washing. What makes this technology particular effective is its consistent, systematic application invisible and never sensed by the society – the victim.
Below I will illustrate step by step how a society first begins to speak about something absolutely unacceptable, then – admits it as a topic proper for discussions, and finally capitulates and embraces a new law that fixes in stone something earlier unthinkable.
As an example let us consider
something which is now totally
unthinkable: cannibalism. Legalization of a civil "right" of citizens
to eat each other. Too harsh an example? Let's see.
Обратите внимание! Он не концепцию предложил, не мысли свои сформулировал некоторым образом — он описал работающую технологию. То есть такую последовательность действий, исполнение которой неизменно приводит к желаемому результату. В качестве оружия для уничтожения человеческих сообществ такая технология может быть эффективнее термоядерного заряда.
Тема каннибализма пока ещё
отвратительна и совершенно не
приемлема в обществе. Рассуждать на эту тему нежелательно ни в прессе,
более, в приличной компании. Пока это немыслимое, абсурдное, запретное
Соответственно, первое движение Окна Овертона — перевести тему
области немыслимого в область радикального.
Pay attention: It is not as
though he merely offered a
concept, or some mind exercise. He had described an actually working
i.e. such a sequence of actions, which surely ends with achievement of
desired result. As a weapon against humanity, this technology may be
efficient that a thermonuclear bomb.
HOW BOLD IT IS!
At the beginning the topic of cannibalism remains so far abominable and absolutely unacceptable in a society. It is undesirable to mention it anywhere: neither in the media, nor in a polite company. So far it remains an unthinkable, absurd, forbidden issue. Therefore, the first shift of the Overton window is to transfer the topic of cannibalism from the area of Unthinkable into the area of Radical.
After all, we do have a freedom of speech, don't we?
So why not to talk about cannibalism a bit?
Actually for scientists it is a must to discuss everything no matter what. There are no topics forbidden for scientists. They must study really everything. Then, if so, let us organize an ethnology symposium titled "Ethnic rites of Polynesian tribes". There we will discuss the history of the subject, introduce this topic into circulation, and obtain a few authoritative statements about the cannibalism.
See, it appears quite possible to pointedly discuss the cannibalism not endangering one's scientific reputation.
Now the Overton window has already moved a bit. Now some reconsideration of the existing position is already outlined. Consequently we have already some transition from an absolutely negative perception of this issue in the society to a bit more positive.
All of a sudden, simultaneously with this pseudo-scientific discussion, there must emerge some "Society of radical cannibals": perhaps only virtually, in the Internet. Nevertheless the media will notice them and they will appear in the news.
Here is why it is useful. First, such news means one more repetition of the fact. Secondly, such a grotesquely barbaric group is needed for creation of an image of an extreme bugaboo. Their designated role is to be "bad cannibals" akin to another bugaboo – "the fascists wishing to burn on stakes everyone differing from them". We will discuss bugaboos more below. Meanwhile it's enough to keep publishing stories what British scientists think about eating human flesh as well as what think some scoundrels of quite a different nature.
A result of the first move of the Overton Window is that an earlier unacceptable topic got into circulation, a taboo was broken, and the issue lost its definite certainty: Now they added shades of gray.
БЫ И НЕТ?
шагом Окно движется
дальше и переводит тему каннибализма из радикальной области в область
ТАК И НАДО
После того как предоставлен
легитимирующий прецендент, появляется возможность
двигать Окно Овертона с территории возможного в область рационального.
«Иногда съесть человека необходимо, существуют непреодолимые обстоятельства»
«Есть люди, желающие чтобы их съели»
«Запретный плод всегда сладок»
«Свободный человек имеет право решать что ему есть»
«Не скрывайте информацию и пусть каждый поймёт, кто он — антропофил или антропофоб»
есть ли в антропофилии вред? Неизбежность его не доказана».
WHY NOT, AFTER ALL?
As a next step, the Window shifts the topic of cannibalism from the Radical area into the area of Possible.
At this stage we keep quoting "scientists": How else? We must not turn away knowledge after all: Even if it is about cannibalism. And everyone who refuses to discuss it should be denounced as a "bigot".
Denouncing "bigotry", we must invent an elegant new term for cannibalism. We do not want that all kind of "fascists" keep name calling us, the dissidents, with some words beginning with "Ca".
ATTENTION! Invention of a euphemism is crucially important. In order to legalize an unthinkable, it is absolutely necessary to replace its authentic name.
Therefore no more cannibalism.
Now it is called something like anthropo-phagia. However soon they will replace also this term, because it "sounds" derogatory too.
The goal of inventing new names is to farther separate the essence of the problem from its name, to tear away the word form from its content, to deprive your ideological opponents of the normal language. Thus cannibalism turns into anthropo-phagia, then into anthropo-philia, similarly to how a criminal changes his names and passports.
Simultaneously with the game about name changes, the agitators vehemently seek and find a precedent as a reference: a historical, mythological, or merely invented. It's extremely important to find a kind of legitimizing precedent as a "proof" that in principle anthropo-philia may be legitimized.
"Recall a legend about a devoted mother, which relieved the thirst of her dying children giving them her own blood?"
"Or think about ancient deities devouring whichever was at hand – it was so common for Romans".
"Even for Christians who are much closer to us, it was quite OK with anthropo-philia! Up to these days they drink the blood and eat the flash of their god as a rite. Would you dare to accuse the Christian Church in anything? Damn, who are you to do it?"
The main task of this debauchery is to justify eating of humans at least once - in order to provide at least a partial decriminalization for it: at least once, in some historic past.
THAT'S THE WAY TO GO
As soon as such a historic legitimizing precedent is established, they can move the Overton Window from the area of Possible into the area of Rational.
This is the third stage at which they complete breaking of the former single problem into pieces.
"An urge to eat people is genetically pre-determined. It is in the human nature".
"Sometimes it is unavoidable to eat a human because such were the circumstances".
"There exist people who wish to be eaten".
"Anthropo-phils were provoked!"
"A forbidden fruit is always attractive".
"A free human being has a right to decide what to eat".
"Do not stay in closets. Let everyone to realize what one is: Anthropophil or Anthropophob".
"Who says as though Anthropophilia is harmful? Nobody has yet proved that".
They artificially create a battle field for this problem in the public arena. As usual, at the extreme sides they place bugaboo wings – an artificially created radical adherents and radical opponents of cannibalism.
The great majority of normal people merely do not wish to remain indifferent about that the cannibalism ceased to be a taboo. However the agitators try to present this majority as though bugaboo haters, crazy psychopaths – extremely aggressive, fascist-like haters of Anthropophils calling to burn alive all cannibals, Jews, commies, and Negroes. Media extensively covers them, while never touching the real and reasonable opponents of legalization of cannibalism.
Under such circumstances, the so called mainstream Anthropophils stay as though in the middle between the two bugaboos, in the area of "reason". From there, with pathos of "prudence and humanity" they denounce "fascists of all brands".
В ХОРОШЕМ СМЫСЛЕ
популяризации темы каннибализма необходимо поддержать её поп-контентом,
сопрягая с историческими и мифологическими личностями, а по возможности
этапу движения Окна Овертона переходят, когда тема разогрета до
возможности перевести её из категории популярного в сферу актуальной
Описанное Овертоном Окно возможностей
легче всего движется в толерантном
обществе. В том обществе, у которого нет идеалов, и, как следствие, нет
разделения добра и зла.
IN A GOOD SENSE
In order to popularize the topic of cannibalism it is necessary to support it with various pop-content, connecting it with historical and mythological personalities and, if possible, with the contemporary public figures.
Now Anthropophila is everywhere in the news and talk shows. They eat humans in top rated movies, in songs lyric, and in video clips.
One of the tricks of popularization is called "Look Around!"
"Didn't you really know that this famous composer is … Yes, Anthropophil?!"
"And another well known Polish film director too has been an Anthropophil during his entire life being even persecuted for that".
"And who counted how many of them were kept in mental hospitals?! How many millions were deported, stripped of citizenship?! By the way, how do you like a new clip of Lady Gaga "Eat me, baby"? "
At this stage they push the topic at the very top so that it becomes autonomous, self-reproducing in the media, show business and politics.
Another effective trick is that the essence of the problem is always buried at the level of the operatives of the media such as journalists, TV show heads, and social organizers, while the true specialist have no chance to participate in the discussion.
At certain point when everybody are already bored, and the "discussion" has stuck, here comes a specially selected "professional" and says: "Ladies and Gentlemen, in reality it all is not the way you think. It is not about that or about this. Instead we must to so and so". And he set a new direction exactly in accordance with the pre-programmed motion of the Overton Window.
In order to justify the adepts of legalization of cannibalism, they resort to humanizing those heinous criminals via creation of their positive image with characteristics unrelated to their criminal proclivities.
"Well, he ate his wife: So what? After
all, they are
WE ARE THE POWER
Here we come to the fifth shift of the Overton Window, when the topic is so much warmed up, that it is possible to move it from the category of Popular to the sphere of actual politic.
Now they become to prepare the legal
ground. The respective
lobby groups consolidate and get out of shadow. They promptly publish
"demonstrating" a high percentage of adherents of legalization of
cannibalism. Politicians become probing the topic in public speeches
some legal initiatives. They introduce a specially twisted dogma like
"Prohibition of eating humans must be forbidden" .
HOW TO BREAK THIS TECHNOLOGY
Shifting of the Overton Window is
easiest in the so called
"tolerant society", in a society having no ideals, and as a
consequence – no clear concepts of good and evil.
Notes of the translator.
1. See item 26 in "Agenda" uncovered
naked Communist" by Skousen in 1958:
2. See the Manifesto in "After the Ball" by Kirk and Madsen (both homosexuals) in 1990.
The "Manifesto" and the entire sodomites' agenda were also well covered in the book "Same-sex marriage: Putting every household at risk" By Mathew Staver (2004), and in "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian (2005): http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/the-homosexual-manifesto/
4. See also http://www.judeochristianamerica.org/Prop8TalkPoints.htm
- Alexander Gofen