Destruction technology
All progressive humanity, as we are told, has completely naturally accepted gays, their subculture, their right to marry, adopt children and promote their sexual orientation in schools and kindergartens. We are told that all this is the natural course of things.
They lie to us.
The lie about the natural course of things was refuted by the American sociologist Joseph Overton, who described the technology of changing society’s attitude to the issues that were once crucial for this society.
Read this description and it will become clear how homosexuality and same-sex marriage will legalize. 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.
What else can be pulled out to our world using the technology described by Overton?
It works flawlessly.
***
Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003), Senior Vice President, Mackinac Center Public Policy Center. He died in a plane crash. He formulated a model for changing the presentation of a problem in public opinion, posthumously called the Overton Window.
***
Joseph Overton described how completely alien to society ideas were raised from the rubbish bin of public disdain, washed off and finally enshrined in law.
According to the Overton Opportunity Window, for every idea or problem in society there is a Sc. window of opportunity. Within this window, the idea may or may not be widely discussed, openly supported, propagandized, attempted to consolidate legislatively. The window is moved, thereby changing the range of possibilities, from the “unthinkable” stage, that is, completely alien to public morality, completely rejected, to the “current policy” stage, that is, already widely discussed, adopted by the mass consciousness and enshrined in the laws.
This is not brainwashing per se, but more subtle technologies. They are made effective by 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, society begins to discuss something unacceptable first, then consider it appropriate, and finally comes to terms with the new law, which consolidates and protects the unthinkable.
Take for example something completely unimaginable. For example, cannibalism, that is, the idea to legalize the right of citizens to eat each other. Hard enough example?
But it is obvious to everyone that right now (2014) there is no way to expand the propaganda of cannibalism: society will stand up. This situation means that the problem of cannibalism legalization is at the zero stage of the window of opportunity. This stage, according to the theory of Overton, is called the Unthinkable. Now we will model how this unthinkable will be realized after passing through all the stages of the window of opportunity.
TECHNOLOGY
Once again, Overton described TECHNOLOGY, which 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 the working technology. That is, such a sequence of actions, the execution of which invariably leads to the desired result. As weapons For the destruction of human communities, this technology may be more effective than a thermonuclear charge.
HOW IT DARED!
The subject of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. To argue on this topic is not desirable either in the press, much less in a decent company. While this is unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. Accordingly, the first movement of the Overton Window is to transfer the topic of cannibalism from the unthinkable to the radical.
We have freedom of speech.
So why not talk about cannibalism?
Scientists are supposed to talk about everything in a row - there are no taboo topics for scientists, they are supposed to study everything. And if this is the case, we will assemble an ethnological symposium on the theme “Exotic rites of the tribes of Polynesia”. Discuss on it history of the subject, we introduce it into the scientific revolution and get the fact authoritative statements about cannibalism.
You see, it turns out that cannibalism can be substantively talked about and, as it were, remain within the limits of scientific respectability.
Overton window has already moved. That is, a revision of positions is already indicated. This ensures a transition from the irreconcilably negative attitude of society towards a more positive attitude.
At the same time with a pseudo-scientific discussion, some sort of "Society of Radical Cannibals" should certainly appear. And let it be presented only on the Internet. Radical cannibals will certainly be noticed and quoted in all the right media.
First, this is another fact of expression. And secondly, the shocking thugs of such a special genesis are needed to create an image of a radical scarecrow. It will be "bad cannibals" as opposed to another scarecrow - "the fascists, calling to burn at the stake not like them." But about scarecrows below. For a start, it is enough to publish stories about what the "British scientists" and some radical scumbags of a different nature think about eating human flesh.
The result of the first movement of the Overton Window: an unacceptable topic was put into circulation, the taboo was desacralized, the uniqueness of the problem was destroyed: “grayscale” was created.
WHY NOT?
The next step, the Window moves on and translates the topic of cannibalism from a radical area into a possible area.
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 hypocrisy, you must definitely come up with cannibalism elegant title. In order not to dare all sorts of fascists to hang labels on dissidents with the word “Ka”.
Attention! Creating a euphemism is a very important moment. To legalize an unthinkable idea, it is necessary to replace its original name.
No more cannibalism.
Now it is called, for example, anthropophagy. But this term will soon be replaced again, having recognized this definition as offensive.
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.
"Remember the legend of the selfless mother, who drank the children dying of thirst with her blood?"
"And the stories of the ancient gods, who ate everybody in a row - the Romans had it in the order of things!"
“Well, the Christians who are closer to us, all the more so with anthropophilia, are in perfect order! They still ritually drink blood and eat the flesh of their god. You do not blame the Christian church for something? Who the hell are you? ”
The main task of the orgy of this stage is to at least partially remove the eating of people from under criminal prosecution. At least once, at some historical moment.
So it is necessary
After the legitimizing precedent is presented, it is possible to move the Overton Window from the territory of the possible to the region of the rational.
This is the third stage. It ends up splitting 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 insuperable circumstances."
"There are people who want to be eaten."
"Anthropofilov provoked!"
"The forbidden fruit is always sweet."
"A free man has the right to decide what he is."
"Do not hide the information and let everyone understand who he is - an anthropophile or anthropofob."
“Is there any harm in anthropophilia? Its inevitability is not proven. ”
In the public mind, an artificially created “battlefield” for the problem. Scarecrows are placed on the extreme flanks - radical supporters and radical opponents of cannibalism appear in a special way.
Real opponents - that is, normal people who do not want to remain indifferent to the problem of de-tabooing cannibalism - are trying to pack them along with bogeymen and write them to radical haters. The role of these scarecrows is to actively create the image of crazy psychopaths: aggressive, fascist haters of anthropophagy, calling to burn cannibals alive, Jews, communists and blacks. Presence in the media provides all of the above, except for real opponents of legalization.
In this scenario, themselves t. N. anthropophiles remain, as it were, in the middle between bogeys, in 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 throughout its history from time to time ate each other, and this is normal. Now the topic of anthropophilia can be transferred from the rational to the popular category. Overton window moves on.
GOOD MEAN
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 news and talk show. People are eaten in a movie of wide distribution, in the lyrics and video clips.
One of the methods of popularization is called “Look around!”
“Didn't you know that one famous composer is of that ... an anthropophile?”
“And one well-known Polish screenwriter was an anthropophile all his life, he was even pursued.”
“And how many of them were sitting in the mental hospitals! How many millions were sent, deprived of citizenship! .. By the way, how do you like the new Lady Gaga clip “Eat me, baby”?
At this stage, the theme being developed is brought to the TOP and it begins to autonomously reproduce itself in the media, show business and politics.
Another effective technique: the essence of the problem is actively blunted at the level of information operators (journalists, TV shows, public figures, etc.), cutting them off from the discussion of specialists.
Then, at the moment when everyone was already bored and the discussion of the problem was stalled, a specially selected professional came in and said: “Gentlemen, in fact, this is not at all the case. And it's not that, but in this. And we must do this and that ”- and in the meantime gives a very definite direction, the bias of which is set by the movement of the“ Window ”.
To justify supporters of legalization, they use the humanization of criminals by creating their positive image through non-criminal characteristics.
“These are creative people. Well, I ate my wife - so what? ”
“They sincerely love their victims. Eating means loves! ”
“Anthropophiles have an increased IQ, and otherwise they adhere to strict morality.”
"The anthropophiles themselves are victims, their life has made them."
"They were brought up like this."
Etc.
This kind of frills - 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 on the path of love ?! "
WE ARE HERE POWER
To the fifth stage of the movement, the Overtona Windows moves on when the topic is warmed up to being able to transfer it from the category of popular to the sphere of current politics.
The preparation of the legislative base begins. Lobbyist groups in power consolidate and emerge from the shadows. Public opinion polls are published, allegedly confirming a 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 introduced into the public consciousness - “the prohibition of eating people is prohibited”.
This is a signature dish of liberalism - tolerance as a ban on taboos, a ban on correction and prevention of devastating deviations for society.
During the last stage of the movement, Windows from the category “popular” to “current policy” society was already broken. The most living part of it will somehow somehow resist legislative consolidation of unthinkable things not so long ago. But in general, society is already broken. It has already agreed with its defeat.
Laws are adopted, norms of human existence are changed (destroyed). Further, the echoes of this topic is inevitable sunk to schools and kindergartens, which means that the next generation will grow up without any chance of survival. So it was with the legalization of pederasty (now they demand to call themselves gay). Now before our eyes, Europe is legalizing incest and child euthanasia.
HOW TO BREAK TECHNOLOGY
The Window of Opportunities described by Overton is the easiest to move in a tolerant society. In a society that does not have ideals, and, as a result, there is no clear separation of good and evil.
Do you want to talk about what your mother is a whore? Want to print a report about this in a journal? Sing a song. Prove in the end that being a whore is normal and even necessary? This is the technology described above. She relies on permissiveness.
No taboo.
There is nothing sacred.
There are no sacral concepts, the discussion of which is forbidden, and their dirty obmusolivanie is stopped immediately. All this is not. And what is there?
There is the so-called freedom of speech, turned into freedom of dehumanization. Before our eyes, one by one, they remove the framework protecting the society of the abyss of self-destruction. Now the road is open there.
You think that alone you can not change anything?
You are absolutely right, a man alone can not a damn thing.
But personally, you must be human. A person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what will not be able to one, then make people united by a common idea. Look around.
They lie to us.
The lie about the natural course of things was refuted by the American sociologist Joseph Overton, who described the technology of changing society’s attitude to the issues that were once crucial for this society.
Read this description and it will become clear how homosexuality and same-sex marriage will legalize. 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.
What else can be pulled out to our world using the technology described by Overton?
It works flawlessly.
***
Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003), Senior Vice President, Mackinac Center Public Policy Center. He died in a plane crash. He formulated a model for changing the presentation of a problem in public opinion, posthumously called the Overton Window.
***
Joseph Overton described how completely alien to society ideas were raised from the rubbish bin of public disdain, washed off and finally enshrined in law.
According to the Overton Opportunity Window, for every idea or problem in society there is a Sc. window of opportunity. Within this window, the idea may or may not be widely discussed, openly supported, propagandized, attempted to consolidate legislatively. The window is moved, thereby changing the range of possibilities, from the “unthinkable” stage, that is, completely alien to public morality, completely rejected, to the “current policy” stage, that is, already widely discussed, adopted by the mass consciousness and enshrined in the laws.
This is not brainwashing per se, but more subtle technologies. They are made effective by 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, society begins to discuss something unacceptable first, then consider it appropriate, and finally comes to terms with the new law, which consolidates and protects the unthinkable.
Take for example something completely unimaginable. For example, cannibalism, that is, the idea to legalize the right of citizens to eat each other. Hard enough example?
But it is obvious to everyone that right now (2014) there is no way to expand the propaganda of cannibalism: society will stand up. This situation means that the problem of cannibalism legalization is at the zero stage of the window of opportunity. This stage, according to the theory of Overton, is called the Unthinkable. Now we will model how this unthinkable will be realized after passing through all the stages of the window of opportunity.
TECHNOLOGY
Once again, Overton described TECHNOLOGY, which 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 the working technology. That is, such a sequence of actions, the execution of which invariably leads to the desired result. As weapons For the destruction of human communities, this technology may be more effective than a thermonuclear charge.
HOW IT DARED!
The subject of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. To argue on this topic is not desirable either in the press, much less in a decent company. While this is unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. Accordingly, the first movement of the Overton Window is to transfer the topic of cannibalism from the unthinkable to the radical.
We have freedom of speech.
So why not talk about cannibalism?
Scientists are supposed to talk about everything in a row - there are no taboo topics for scientists, they are supposed to study everything. And if this is the case, we will assemble an ethnological symposium on the theme “Exotic rites of the tribes of Polynesia”. Discuss on it history of the subject, we introduce it into the scientific revolution and get the fact authoritative statements about cannibalism.
You see, it turns out that cannibalism can be substantively talked about and, as it were, remain within the limits of scientific respectability.
Overton window has already moved. That is, a revision of positions is already indicated. This ensures a transition from the irreconcilably negative attitude of society towards a more positive attitude.
At the same time with a pseudo-scientific discussion, some sort of "Society of Radical Cannibals" should certainly appear. And let it be presented only on the Internet. Radical cannibals will certainly be noticed and quoted in all the right media.
First, this is another fact of expression. And secondly, the shocking thugs of such a special genesis are needed to create an image of a radical scarecrow. It will be "bad cannibals" as opposed to another scarecrow - "the fascists, calling to burn at the stake not like them." But about scarecrows below. For a start, it is enough to publish stories about what the "British scientists" and some radical scumbags of a different nature think about eating human flesh.
The result of the first movement of the Overton Window: an unacceptable topic was put into circulation, the taboo was desacralized, the uniqueness of the problem was destroyed: “grayscale” was created.
WHY NOT?
The next step, the Window moves on and translates the topic of cannibalism from a radical area into a possible area.
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 hypocrisy, you must definitely come up with cannibalism elegant title. In order not to dare all sorts of fascists to hang labels on dissidents with the word “Ka”.
Attention! Creating a euphemism is a very important moment. To legalize an unthinkable idea, it is necessary to replace its original name.
No more cannibalism.
Now it is called, for example, anthropophagy. But this term will soon be replaced again, having recognized this definition as offensive.
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.
"Remember the legend of the selfless mother, who drank the children dying of thirst with her blood?"
"And the stories of the ancient gods, who ate everybody in a row - the Romans had it in the order of things!"
“Well, the Christians who are closer to us, all the more so with anthropophilia, are in perfect order! They still ritually drink blood and eat the flesh of their god. You do not blame the Christian church for something? Who the hell are you? ”
The main task of the orgy of this stage is to at least partially remove the eating of people from under criminal prosecution. At least once, at some historical moment.
So it is necessary
After the legitimizing precedent is presented, it is possible to move the Overton Window from the territory of the possible to the region of the rational.
This is the third stage. It ends up splitting 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 insuperable circumstances."
"There are people who want to be eaten."
"Anthropofilov provoked!"
"The forbidden fruit is always sweet."
"A free man has the right to decide what he is."
"Do not hide the information and let everyone understand who he is - an anthropophile or anthropofob."
“Is there any harm in anthropophilia? Its inevitability is not proven. ”
In the public mind, an artificially created “battlefield” for the problem. Scarecrows are placed on the extreme flanks - radical supporters and radical opponents of cannibalism appear in a special way.
Real opponents - that is, normal people who do not want to remain indifferent to the problem of de-tabooing cannibalism - are trying to pack them along with bogeymen and write them to radical haters. The role of these scarecrows is to actively create the image of crazy psychopaths: aggressive, fascist haters of anthropophagy, calling to burn cannibals alive, Jews, communists and blacks. Presence in the media provides all of the above, except for real opponents of legalization.
In this scenario, themselves t. N. anthropophiles remain, as it were, in the middle between bogeys, in 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 throughout its history from time to time ate each other, and this is normal. Now the topic of anthropophilia can be transferred from the rational to the popular category. Overton window moves on.
GOOD MEAN
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 news and talk show. People are eaten in a movie of wide distribution, in the lyrics and video clips.
One of the methods of popularization is called “Look around!”
“Didn't you know that one famous composer is of that ... an anthropophile?”
“And one well-known Polish screenwriter was an anthropophile all his life, he was even pursued.”
“And how many of them were sitting in the mental hospitals! How many millions were sent, deprived of citizenship! .. By the way, how do you like the new Lady Gaga clip “Eat me, baby”?
At this stage, the theme being developed is brought to the TOP and it begins to autonomously reproduce itself in the media, show business and politics.
Another effective technique: the essence of the problem is actively blunted at the level of information operators (journalists, TV shows, public figures, etc.), cutting them off from the discussion of specialists.
Then, at the moment when everyone was already bored and the discussion of the problem was stalled, a specially selected professional came in and said: “Gentlemen, in fact, this is not at all the case. And it's not that, but in this. And we must do this and that ”- and in the meantime gives a very definite direction, the bias of which is set by the movement of the“ Window ”.
To justify supporters of legalization, they use the humanization of criminals by creating their positive image through non-criminal characteristics.
“These are creative people. Well, I ate my wife - so what? ”
“They sincerely love their victims. Eating means loves! ”
“Anthropophiles have an increased IQ, and otherwise they adhere to strict morality.”
"The anthropophiles themselves are victims, their life has made them."
"They were brought up like this."
Etc.
This kind of frills - 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 on the path of love ?! "
WE ARE HERE POWER
To the fifth stage of the movement, the Overtona Windows moves on when the topic is warmed up to being able to transfer it from the category of popular to the sphere of current politics.
The preparation of the legislative base begins. Lobbyist groups in power consolidate and emerge from the shadows. Public opinion polls are published, allegedly confirming a 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 introduced into the public consciousness - “the prohibition of eating people is prohibited”.
This is a signature dish of liberalism - tolerance as a ban on taboos, a ban on correction and prevention of devastating deviations for society.
During the last stage of the movement, Windows from the category “popular” to “current policy” society was already broken. The most living part of it will somehow somehow resist legislative consolidation of unthinkable things not so long ago. But in general, society is already broken. It has already agreed with its defeat.
Laws are adopted, norms of human existence are changed (destroyed). Further, the echoes of this topic is inevitable sunk to schools and kindergartens, which means that the next generation will grow up without any chance of survival. So it was with the legalization of pederasty (now they demand to call themselves gay). Now before our eyes, Europe is legalizing incest and child euthanasia.
HOW TO BREAK TECHNOLOGY
The Window of Opportunities described by Overton is the easiest to move in a tolerant society. In a society that does not have ideals, and, as a result, there is no clear separation of good and evil.
Do you want to talk about what your mother is a whore? Want to print a report about this in a journal? Sing a song. Prove in the end that being a whore is normal and even necessary? This is the technology described above. She relies on permissiveness.
No taboo.
There is nothing sacred.
There are no sacral concepts, the discussion of which is forbidden, and their dirty obmusolivanie is stopped immediately. All this is not. And what is there?
There is the so-called freedom of speech, turned into freedom of dehumanization. Before our eyes, one by one, they remove the framework protecting the society of the abyss of self-destruction. Now the road is open there.
You think that alone you can not change anything?
You are absolutely right, a man alone can not a damn thing.
But personally, you must be human. A person is able to find a solution to any problem. And what will not be able to one, then make people united by a common idea. Look around.
Information