Man is finite because he is mortal and his capabilities and virtues are limited. The generous will give a little of what he has, but he will not give all. The patient will endure long, but only to the limit of his patience. The Merciful will help, but only to the extent that he himself will not destroy himself. At the limit of our generosity, we become tight-fisted, at the end of our patience, we become angry, at the end of our charity, we become hardhearted.

At the limit of his masculinity every man is weak, at the limit of his charm every woman is impersonal, the limit of all care is the impossibility of caring enough for someone when care requires money and exceeds our financial means.

Then can anyone ever be said to be patient, generous, or merciful, caring, can we find a man who is "man" enough, or a woman who is beautiful enough beyond the limit of her possible youth, when in the end and limit of all these good qualities, they become their exact opposite?

These questions are the social psychopathies of our time, whose sole purpose is to take away your personality.

This is the psychopathy of depersonalization, of ridicule, undermining, desacralization. Depersonalization psychopathy looks for your extreme, your limit, settles right on the edge and starts playing with you and who you are and want to be, constantly comparing you to something more and showing you how inadequate and unconvincing you are to claim whatever you are.

The psychopaths of your depersonalization can turn you into anything they want if you let them, for to the best of your ability you are bound to deny yourself.

A man who is stripped of his masculinity by these psychopathies becomes transgender long before he realizes it, for his masculinity is easily depersonalized and contested, but his transgenderism may be indisputable, a woman depersonalized as a woman will look to the alternative forms of society peace in its right NOT to assert identity.

We are so used to being made fun of that we don't notice it, we even welcome it, like ABBA's hologram concert in which this great band accepted to be depersonalized by the hologram, the hologram denied their attractiveness as individuals and artists, but showed the unacceptability them to be old, to be elderly people who still sing…

It is possible to be persons only in the awareness and recognition of our finitude and the assertion of an identity within the limits of our finitude, to the extent that we are confident in ourselves and associate with people who respect our identity, not challenge or undermine it.

This is perhaps the new rebellion - the right to have an identity.

According to the Overton Window, for every idea or problem in society, there is a so-called "window of opportunity". Within this window, ideas may or may not be widely discussed, openly supported, propagated, and attempted to be normatively entrenched. The window moves, changing the possibilities from the stage of the "unthinkable", completely alien to public morality, completely rejected - to the stage of "norm", that is, to something already widely discussed and accepted by the mass consciousness.

Now … an example of how the technology works. Let's take for example something completely unimaginable. Let's assume that cannibalism is legalized, that is, the idea of ​​legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other.

Is the example horrific and unimaginable enough?

It is obvious to everyone that it is now impossible to spread propaganda about cannibalism - society will crucify anyone who dares to try. Such a situation means that the problem of the legalization of cannibalism is at stage zero in the window of opportunity.

This stage, according to Overton's theory, is called "THE UNTHINKABLE." Let's trace how this "unthinkable" will be realized, going through all the stages…

STEP ONE - But how is it possible?

The topic of cannibalism is still disgusting and totally unacceptable in society. For now, this is an unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. Accordingly, the first movement of Overton's 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, in that case, why not talk about cannibalism?

The Overton window has now moved. That is, it is already in the "viewing positions" sector. In this way, the transition from the irreconcilably negative attitude of society to a more positive one is guaranteed. To begin with, it is enough to publish accounts of what various foreign and local scholars think about the subject.

The result of the first movement of Overton's Window is that the unacceptable subject is brought into circulation, the taboo is declassified, the unambiguity of the problem is destroyed - "shades of gray" are created. All kinds of competent authorities speak out on the matter, and there are always such radical movements and specialists who, seeking sensation, will advocate for the new.

STEP TWO - Why not?

The next movement of the Window brings the theme of cannibalism from the "RADICAL" into the realm of the "POSSIBLE or ACCEPTABLE".

At this point, we continue to quote "the scientists". We shouldn't turn away from knowledge! About cannibalism. Anyone who refuses to discuss this should be branded a bigot or a non-puck outsider to human problems.

While we are on the subject of bigotry and racism, we must come up with an elegant name or euphemism for cannibalism.

Attention! The creation of a euphemism is an extremely important point. To legalize the unthinkable idea, it is necessary to change its real name. The purpose of inventing new names is to take the problem out of its name, to separate the form of the word from its content.

Cannibalism, which is called anthropophagy, will now be called anthropophilia. As the criminal changes his surname and passport...

Parallel to the name game is the creation of a supporting precedent - historical, mythological, current or simply fictional, but most importantly - legitimizing. It will be found or invented as "proof" that anthropophilia can in principle be legitimized.

The main task at this stage is to at least partially decriminalize eating people. At least in some particular case and at a certain historical moment.

STEP THREE - Maybe it's not so bad?

Once a legitimizing precedent is presented, an opportunity arises to move the Overton Window from the territory of the "POSSIBLE" to the realm of the "REASONABLE." This is the third stage. It ends the cycle of crushing single problems.

At this stage phrases like:

The desire to eat people is genetic, it's human nature."

"Sometimes eating a person is necessary, compelling circumstances exist."

"There are people who want to be eaten."

"Forbidden fruit is the sweetest!"

"A free man has the right to decide what to eat."

"Don't hide the information and let everyone decide what they are - anthropophile or anthropophobe."

"And is there a danger in anthropophilia? This has not been proven.'

A "battlefield" for the problem is artificially created in public consciousness.

The extreme flanks are occupied by the so-called "scarecrows" - specially created groups of people from radical supporters of cannibalism, but under the guise of posing as its radicals adherents of cannibalism, but undercover present themselves as radical opponents of it, with the sole aim of joining the group of anthropophobes.

And then these "scarecrows" actively create on the image of anthropophobes the image of crazy psychopaths - aggressive haters of anthropophiles, poorly educated, calling for people to be burned alive, for example, just not to be eaten, etc.

And the media, which is necessarily present at the riots of the anthropophobes, to present all the things listed above, just not the real opponents of legalization and their real, normal, moral views.

And so these opponents of the legalization of the idea present themselves…

The Overton window moves further.

STEP FOUR – In a good way…

"Scientists" and journalists at this stage prove that representatives of humanity throughout their history have eaten each other from time to time, and this is normal. Now the topic of anthropophilia can be translated from the field of "REASONABLE" to the category of "POPULAR".

Anthropophilia permeates the news and talk shows en masse. People get eaten in movies, in song lyrics, and in videos. One of the promotion techniques is called "Side View!"

The authorities also get into action:

"Didn't you know that a famous composer—whoever you are—is an anthropophile?"

"And a well-known Polish screenwriter was an anthropophile all his life, he was even persecuted for it.

"By the way, what do you think of Lady Gaga's new 'Eat me, baby' video?"

Criminals are used to justify supporters of legalization, creating a positive image of them outside of crime-related characteristics:

"These are creative people. He ate his wife and what?'

"They genuinely love their victims. To eat is to love!”

"Anthropophiles have a high IQ and in everything else adhere to strict morality."

"Anthropophiles themselves are victims, life has made them so."

"That's how they raised them."

"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?

Maybe this is love? What kind of people are you to stand in the way of love?!”

STEP FIVE – If everyone thinks so…

The Overton window moves forward to step five, when the subject is warmed to the possibility of moving from the "POPULAR" category to the "NORMAL" realm.

Preparations for the legislative base begin. Lobby groups in power are consolidating and coming out of the shadows. Polls are published to confirm the high percentage of supporters of the legalization of cannibalism. Politicians are starting to release trial balloons with public speeches on the topic - "legislative anchoring of the topic."

During the final stage of the Window movement, society is already broken. His living part will still somehow resist against the legislative enshrinement of the until recently unthinkable thing. But society as a whole is really broken. It has already accepted its defeat…

Laws have been passed, the norm of human existence has changed, the new model of behavior will inevitably reach schools and kindergartens. The new generation will grow up with the "new normal" already established.

Is it possible to oppose the "Overton Window" with which, in the method of the boiled frog, we are often put in the cauldron?

(The boiled frog method is to slowly heat the water, where the frog doesn't know what's about to happen to it, instead of being scalded outright with boiling water)...

Once upon a time in all the poverty of the "Socium" a clever emperor sent his speakers among the plebs and ordered the speakers what words they should spread …

"Tell them that the less is more ,tell them that the bread is the new meat, they always loved metaphors and make them believe the metaphors and live them"

Each one of us still has the potential to stop the opening of the window…

Shared with (out) joy

A A

Stob, Bulgaria