The American sociologist Joseph F. Overton, describes a process for creating change in society in relation to any issue in the world. Things that were strictly taboo and forbidden were legitimized in hidden and unknown ways so that they could come be publicly acceptable.
Overton served as the senior vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in the United States. He dedicated his research to the fascinating question: How is it possible that things that have always been disgusting in the eyes of the public, suddenly manage to become legitimate issues that stand at the center of public debate, so much so that at the end of a process they even acceptable to the general society?
Overton came to an amazing conclusion.
Any subject can be legalized, no matter how delusional, crazy, or controversial it is. What is needed for this is effort, determination, and a lot of patience. What is most important is proceeding correctly, step by step.
Overton described how completely unacceptable ideas among the public were taken out of the trash can of public scorn, washed and cleaned, so to speak, until eventually they were put in the law book, and became legitimate and approved by the public in practice.
Overton didn't just talk about 'gradual change'. You don't have to be a genius to say that. Everyone knows that cultural changes are made in small steps. And it doesn't always work, because even with small steps, it is impossible to legalize things that are strictly taboo.
Overton's method teaches something else. Overton explains how to find all kinds of loopholes in the wall of human culture, which allow the agents of change to penetrate through them, slowly but surely, and thus bring about the long-awaited change in society.
Many people who read about the Overton Window, read it superficially, and thought it was something theoretical with no practical ramifications for daily life.
But they were wrong. The Overton Window is all about practical techniques and doomsday weapons. The best of minds were used to create a tool for destruction of cultures and communities of peoples of all sorts, in an efficient and practical way. The technology is more effective than nuclear weapons.
The most striking example of the malicious and intentional use of the tools provided by the Overton method is the global campaign currently underway in all Western countries, to grant public, moral and legal legitimacy to those with the most morbid desires on earth. The organizations of the left and the liberals invest unimaginably huge sums on these techniques, which they currently see as the tip of the spear in their war against the religious, right-wing and conservative world and the values they represent. Unfortunately, they succeed.
By treading cautiously and calculatingly, according to the Overton model, they succeed in causing billions of people in the world to shake off the most basic foundations of the world of values in which they grew up. They get people to adopt concepts that in their eyes were once disgusting, and give them legitimicy. At the same time, one who thinks differently than them is presented as an archaic and rigid person, who sometimes may even get into trouble with the law.
How did such a radical, fundamental, and rapid change happen?
Officially, these moves are presented as if they were social processes occurring by themselves, as part of the development of the new generation. But that's not true. This is not a normal social process. This is an initiated and joint move by the liberals, the leftist circles, the courts, the liberal legislators, and the leftist media, operating according to the Overton outline.
Six Steps for Perceptual Transformation
People are not prepared to accept a radical change in their principled positions, especially if they are aimed at breaking the basic values and traditions that are deeply rooted in the soul. According to the principles of the "Overton Window," the solution is simple: adjust "the scale of what is allowed" in relation to the subject you want to allow, not immediately, but gradually, step by step, until the final goal.
This is not brainwashing, like it sounds, but a much more sophisticated technology. What makes it so effective is its consistent and systematic application. This is coupled with a lack of transparency of the planned impact for the target community/ victim.
The Overton's window layout is built on six steps:
The first stage is the "unacceptable" stage, in which, in fact, they are dealing with an idea that is completely contrary to public morality, and therefore is immediately ruled out. Overton discovered that anything that is 'illegitimate' is also 'non-existent' on the map of possibilities and in normal discourse. This is the first stage of the Overton model (a zero window of opportunity to change something).
For this purpose, they go on to the second stage:
They will not deal now with the legitimacy at all. They will just talk about it, and that's how it will turn from “nothing” to “something.” They make it at least 'exist'. The distance from 'existing' to 'legitimate' is very short, much shorter than you think... but right now they won't tell you what they want. Of course you won't object that much, and even if you object it won't help you much, because no one is coming to say that it is allowed and legitimate. They just want to talk about it a little bit. What's wrong with talking?
But creating a discourse and giving an abominable concept a place in human culture is not a simple matter either. After all, this is a truly abominable thing, right? This is exactly why Overton found all kinds of loopholes. First of all, they use the services of the academia and the researchers, who are ready to discuss virtually any topic.
They have academic discussions that portray the idea as extreme. The very talk erases the taboo, and opens the window for the buds of change.
Third stage: The creation of semantics that make the idea plausible among the public. This can be done by changing the name, or connecting human tendencies that support the change. Or, giving positive descriptions of people who have changed. With the changes of definition, slowly, the needle is moving.
Fourth stage: Discourse and artificial discussion in society, which will conclude that with clear boundaries as to what is forbidden and what is permitted, the idea becomes acceptable in certain cases.
Fifth step: Media storms are made, giving popularity to the idea in the press, and legitimacy among society (“Everyone has their way of doing things,” etc.)
Sixth stage: The idea now becomes political by raising it to a public debate, introducing it to the public consciousness. Slowly society internalizes the matter and treats it as something acceptable; and at the very end, it is accepted by law, its status officially, legally regulated.
Who would have dreamed?
Thus a previously unthinkable topic becomes part of an official policy and becomes accepted by the public in practice. The process enables the acceptance of the new law as a founder and protector of this 'something', which in the recent past was considered a terrible and shocking thing...
This method works on all people and all areas. It works on individuals, on groups, on countries - on everyone.
The Overton model in action
This is how the Overton model can process any idea that seems completely absurd to any human morality and logic, make it legitimate and qualify it to come into the public domain. Let's take, for the sake of demonstration, a completely absurd idea: Cannibalism.
Freedom of Expression
The first step of moving the Overton window: to move the issue of cannibalism from the unthinkable zone, to the radical zone. After all, in Western society the use of freedom of expression is approved, not to mention encouraged. So why not talk about cannibalism? The freedom of academic research in modern society is a sacred value, for which everything is permitted.
Eating people is forbidden. It is forbidden to legitimize it. Casting any doubt on the latter is also forbidden, from the point of view of society, absolutely forbidden. But there is one loophole - scientists are allowed to research and talk about everything. Woe to those who try to silence them.
Anthropological Conference
Later, the scientists propose to hold an anthropological conference on "Exotic Customs and Rituals of Polynesian Tribes". The conference will discuss the history of cannibalism, introduce the concept into scientific discussion, and receive authoritative citations professionally. This creates the possibility to talk about eating a person and at the same time remain within the respectable framework of “science”.
Overton's window has begun to move. This means redefining the boundaries, which ensures a transition from the people’s most negative attitude towards the subject to a more positive one.
A group called “The Gang of Radical Cannibals” must appear, and it doesn't matter if it will only be established as a virtual website in the network. These Radical Cannibals will no doubt be quoted and featured in all relevant media outlets. Firstly, this is another reminder of the existence of the phenomenon. Secondly, there is a need for ostentatious exercises of this special phenomenon, in order to create the image of a radical scarecrow . These will be the "bad cannibals", as opposed to the scarecrow at the other end - "fascists who call for the burning of everyone who differs from them".
I will talk about scarecrows later. For starters, it's enough to publish articles about what British scientists and other kinds of radical perverts think about eating human flesh. In doing so, they arrive at the first result of moving the Overton window: the "unthinkable" enters the public consciousness. The taboo was destroyed. An unequivocal understanding of the problem was destroyed. In other words - shades of 'grey' were created in the mind.
At this stage, a new concept is introduced to people - "the issue of cannibalism". There is an issue here, there is a topic. It is complex and deep, with sides and arguments. It's not just human monsters that eat each other, but a deep academic-research-cultural issue, which supposedly requires an in-depth discussion...
Change the Name
In the next step, the window moves forward and transfers the cannibalism from the "radical" field to the "possible" field. At this point, they will continue to quote "scientists" - it is impossible to turn their backs on knowledge - about cannibalism of course. A person who refuses to discuss the issue will be declared archaic and outdated, hypocritical and arrogant.
On the way to the condemnations of self-righteousness, we must come up with an elegant name for cannibalism. This is so that all the fascists of all kinds will not dare to call those who "think differently" by the horrible connotation that begins with the letter "C".
Pay attention! The creation of the cultural term is the decisive moment! In order to whitewash the unpalatable idea - the original name must be replaced.
From this moment on, within a few months, the concept of cannibalism will completely disappear from the field, as it were. Just like various concepts disappeared in the past and new and more modern names appeared in their place. Cannibalism will be called from now on - anthropophagy. This term will be replaced soon, afterwards it will later also be defined as too insulting.
The goal in inventing new names is to distract the public from the essence of the taboo phenomenon with the literal definition; we need to separate the form of the word from its meaning, and to smear the ideological opponents. Cannibalism becomes anthropophagy, later it becomes anthropophilia, similar to a criminal who changes his name and identification.
At the same time as we play the name game, the underlying precedent event is produced - historical, mythological, topical and even simulated - the main thing is that it looks legitimate. It will be found, or invented, as "proof" that anthropophilia can be a legitimate thing.
"Do you remember the myth about the devoted mother, who gave her children dying of thirst to drink her blood?"
"And what about the stories about gods from ancient times who ate each other in order? The Romans accepted this as routine!"
The main goal of these sentences, at this stage, is to remove cannibalism from the criminal domain, at least partially, and at least once, at some historical moment.
Artificial Battlefield
After a precedent / legitimate / historical case has been presented, an opportunity arises to move the Overton window from the realm of the "possible" to the realm of the "rational". This is the third stage, in which the negative phenomenon crashes and disperses into small pieces.
"The desire to eat a person is genetic, it is in a person's nature, a person loves his own kind."
"Sometimes eating a human being is necessary, there are circumstances when it is legitimate - like in the Holocaust."
"There are people who desire to be eaten."
"The free man has the right to decide what he will eat."
"The tendency to eat grass is exactly the same as the tendency to eat those walking on two legs."
"Don't hide information. That way everyone will decide for themselves whether they are an anthropophile or an anthropophobe."
"Is there really any harm in anthropophilia? This is a folk myth that has not been scientifically proven."
An artificial 'battlefield' is created in the public's mind. At both ends they place the 'scarecrows' of the radicals both in favour of anthropophilia and those who are against it. The real opponents - those who do not wish to remain indifferent to the problem of removing the definitions of cannibalism - these people are automatically associated with 'scarecrows' and labeled as racists.
The role of these scarecrows is to create an image of crazy psychopaths on both sides of the fence: aggressive anthropophagy haters, fascists, who call for all cannibals, Jews, and communists to be burned alive. The media proudly provides exposure to all extremists - but they don’t provide any exposure for the real opponents of the legalization.
By representing the arguments in this way, the anthropophiles themselves are placed, so to speak, in the middle, between the radical scarecrows for and against, they are now within the range of what is considered normal. With all the pathos of "sanity and humanity", they condemn "fascists of any kind", and all manifestations of cultural intolerance of any kind .
Press, News, and Entertainment Programs
The "scientists" and the journalists, at this point, are proving to everyone that humanity throughout history has eaten one another, and that this is natural and quite normal. Quite impressive oil paintings by scandal-seeking painters showcase well-known and famous 'historical events' of cannibalism by the so-called good and well-known of the human race.
Now it is possible to transfer the subject of anthropophilia from the "rational" field to the "acceptable category". The Overton Window continues to move forward with vigor.
In order to publicize the issue of cannibalism in the public, we must have the support of popular content and link them to historical or mythological figures, and if possible, also, connect them with famous figures of today. Anthropophilia is making its way into news and entertainment programs in an acceptable way.
One of the marketing means of the advertising process is called "Look around you!"
"Didn't you know that that well-known composer is.. uh.. an anthropophile?"
“Did you know that, screenwriter so-and-so, who is known to everyone - all his life he was an anthropophile and was not even persecuted for it?"
“You know how many of them are put into psychiatric hospitals! How many millions were deported and stripped of their citizenship! By the way, what do you think about the new music video "Eat My Children"?
At this point the promoted topic hits the headlines, it begins to spread randomly in media, business and politics.
The next effective approach - the essence of the problem is discussed to extensively at the level of the information carriers: journalists, TV show hosts, social activists, etc. , without the participation of the experts.
At the defining moment, when everyone is bored and the discussion reaches a dead end, the expert chosen strictly for this purpose will come out and announce in the spotlight: "Gentlemen, things are actually not true at all. The problem is not here but there. And we need to do this and that." It even gives the specific direction required for further moving the Overton window.
Beautify the Bad
In order to justify the supporters of the legalization of cannibalism , the criminals are beautified with the help of humane and human characteristics that are not at all related to the essence of their crime.
"These are the people of the spirit and creativity. Well then, what if he ate his wife?"
"They really love their victims. Eat, I mean, love, like people who love fish - eat them ."
"Anthropophiles have a very high IQ. They are very conservative and moral in all other matters."
"The anthropophiles themselves are victims. They were forced to become what they are due to the constraints of a difficult life."
"They were brought up that way," and so on.
Confusions of this kind are simply the bread and butter of panel shows on television , the Internet, and other media .
Current Politics
The Overton window begins to move into its fifth stage only when the matter is 'heated up' enough to move it from a popular category to the realm of actual politics.
The process includes an activity to introduce a constitutional basis for the issue. Lobbyist and groups in the government are getting together and coming out of the shadows. Referendums conducted by sociologists are published which prove, so to speak, a high percentage of supporters for the legalization of cannibalism. Politicians are beginning to feel the pulse and issue public statements regarding official legislation to establish the matter.
Now, in the last stage of the window, and its transformation from “popular” to “current politics,” the public is already broken. The living part of them will still continue to oppose the constitutional establishment of things that were unthinkable until a relatively short time ago; But overall, the public is broken. They have had already agreed and surrendered to their loss. The laws were accepted; the norms of human life have now been destroyed; In the future, the concept will also be rolled out in schools and kindergartens and the next generation will grow up with this concept part of daily life without a chance to change it.
Not only can you legalize cannibalism, it is also possible to create a situation where the opponents of cannibalism are the ones who will be led to the gallows! This is exactly what has been done, not in a dark country somewhere, but in a incredibly cultured and modern country!
The Overton Model Works Amazingly Well.
Think about the Holocaust.
The German public of those days was very modern and intelligent. The most civilized, most kind and polite people in the world. The people of progress and enlightenment. Within a decade and a half they became the equivalent of cannibals. They may have not eaten people with a knife and fork, however they would have been able to do so without any problem.
Think of the soap made of human fat.
In Meron, at the entrance to Rabbi Yehuda Bar Ilai's cave, on the right side, there is a special grave where they buried the fat soap that remained after the war - the infamous soap of the Nazis. This soap was made from the fat of their victims. The soap circulated all over Germany, and no one saw anything wrong with it. Is there a difference between eating human flesh and using soap made from human fat?
The Nazis knew the method very well. They went step by step. It was not in one day that they turned from normal people into the most horrible and terrible monsters ever.
Here, these exact methods are used today in the western world to legalize all kinds of abominations, which include murder in the full sense of the word of babies, the terminally ill, and more. To beautify this horrible crime, this murder received the new-old washed-up definition “euthanasia.”
From the sefer "דמעות של מלאכים" translated and edited by netzachyisrael substack
-----------
This is EXACTLY what has happened and is happening in our culture with regard to homosexuality and its accessories, gender identity, abortion etc. etc.
