How to break glass in Overton Windows

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

It was useful to consider the method, because this formalizes the process and divides it into conditional stages (which in reality may turn out to be mixed and not strictly sequential). Having classified, the pseudo-scientific language also facilitates our thought process: is it possible to resist this cannibalistic technology?

Can

It is clear that the blogger will not be allowed to mediawhere the monopoly belongs to the followers New World Order (part of the general sliding window technology is to recognize everyone outside the currently open gap and, two absolutely key terms for them.)

But bloggers today have their own field of play, which reaches a noticeable audience.

Let's go up the steps

STEP 1

The topic is still banned. It can bring it up for discussion, because

It is interesting that the special role of science for propagandists in the course of the war for the destruction of minority society was noticed for a long time.

(EXAMPLE A) Freud presented himself as - and already in our time (to my surprise when I heard this) another member of the same sect, Noam Chomskyseemingly explained that he appreciates Freud most of all for being one. For Chomsky Freud great in helping to kill Christianity.

(EXAMPLE B) Freud's nephewwho moved to USA, stood at the origins of the manipulations that created. It is interesting that he devoted a special place to the creation of pseudo-scientific, disguised as scientific names, the design of reports and documents, etc., organizations that will issue, a view in support of the promoted team Lucien products or themes.

(EXAMPLE B) In our time and in the West to promote what the soldiers need New World Order, which is difficult or impossible to enter into official governments, are created "expert advice" (not having the slightest legal right to make or conduct their issues under the laws of these countries), which however "all of a sudden" are heard by politicians, "all of a sudden" beginners to introduce directly what no one seemed to be obliged to formally support.

THAT IS PARASITISM IN SCIENCE and her absolutely unique authority in our societies is known

Let's go back now to the first step and overton windows … So, for the introduction of the issue into circulation, they are being made that will be picked up and popularized by the media

DESTRUCTION METHOD: use an ingenious folk-mind-created meme. People are not as dumb as manipulators would like, and they themselves have noticed the idiocy of Western "science", especially in the social sphere, having coined a mocking term.

LAUGH AT THE BLANKETS OF "BRITISH SCIENTISTS"

STEP 2

At the second stage for the put into circulation

(a)a euphemism is invented. No more cannibalism, there is. In fact, a chain of ephemeisms is being invented (by the way, this principle in a related field perfectly explains why there were no "blacks" in the United States, then there were no more, which were stolen by aliens in one night, replacing by the morning with the same number)

(b)looking for a legitimizing precedent (in the history of mankind)

DESTRUCTION METHODS:

(a)make intentionally rude. For example, not, but, and stick to this terminology, commenting on the words of the NWO propagandists, or in your statements.

There is no and there were none - there is a self-named group that performed what they themselves named. Avoid a term that has not been translated from English, which works as an excuse, softening (due to the masses' ignorance of the language) euphemism.

Interestingly, none of the people working in the official media, for example, Kholmogorov, or any Tretyakov, not to mention Kuraev, did not do that once (although they knew the real translations very well)

History is very helpful for this technique. In the Middle Ages, things were still called by their proper names, and therefore, the language of the chronicle or report of some sexton, or retelling on behalf of a person from a time machine, etc. etc. - will allow you to retell it in other words, and will show the enormity of the euphemisms of Newspeak

(b)Further, (b1)Explain as a principle that among the billions of people who have lived and lived, EVERYTHING can be found, and that "one precedent" once somewhere in no way legitimizes anything. This is illogical, this is a rape of common sense.

(b2) One more trick: Include a mock "by analogy" (global warming exactly correlates with the number of "pirates" downloading music. It is the fault of the auto and oil producers, etc.). A mockery that reveals the essence of manipulation by the method of bringing to the point of absurdity, giving a similar "simple" example.

There is such a principle

Somehow, they say, the researchers took an algebra problem from a 5th grade school textbook, and offered to solve it for a group of subjects. Half in its original form (2 pipes lead into the pool, of such and such a diameter, and one comes out of it, with such and such a throughput. Determine how long it takes for a pool of volume X to be filled with water). The other half was reformulated the same problem (in the cooling pool of a nuclear power plant there are 2 circuits supplying coolant to the pool, from which one pipe comes out …)

It turned out that if the original problem was solved or tried to be solved by almost everything, then a large share of the second similar option simply refused to solve: "well, we do not understand anything in nuclear physics."

Therefore, inventing euphemisms and new terminology, the constant work of Newspeak specialists, is just as important: she retells the obvious. Accordingly, simplification, coarseness, bafos, bringing the same chain of reasoning to reasoning about galoshes and puddles in the rain is the most important counter-method for destroying deception, and not just ridicule. Which practically none of the alleged disputants ever uses in the media, have you noticed? They - even always follow the terminology of the New World Order.

STEP 3

The Overton window is shifted by translating the topic, and the topic is split into a "battlefield"

Is it rational, rational?

In fact, the strictest censorship and taboos are maintained in an organized field.

Take the topic of the death penalty, for example.

And so on, for each subcategory of manipulated its own.

At the same time, it does not matter if the arguments contradict each other (by the way, propaganda differs from correct thinking - it works by composing post facto, working not to search for the truth, but from the given one, set by someone a priori, under which they are adjusted in support)

WHAT IS THE CONTRACT TO THIS?

First: is the rational so rationally? - NO, because in the given variations on the theme ALWAYS ARE TABOO (for real, rational arguments "against", which are always present in a real assessment of a question or problem)

Therefore, we can SOUND TABOO: “Do you want rationality? - well, let's look at the problem through the eyes of an adult. Cynical, but what can you do, you want complete rationality.

Here, speaking of the death penalty, you always cite a criminal offense as an example. But in real life, you don't care about ordinary criminals. The issue of the abolition of the death penalty was raised by the MINORITY, which knows about itself that it is waging a war against the majority, and in this daily war commits monstrous crimes (for example, the destruction of cities for profit, shooting unwanted ones, genocide of the Russian population during the "division of the pie", etc.). etc., etc., etc.).

But if it turns so that someone "from ours", from a parasitic minority, ends up in prison, then it can be pulled out, redeemed, smeared, whatever ONLY IF THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY for the worst crimes against the common population. This is where your campaign's legs grow.

And here you are playing a child's game for us. Remember? - a word is guessed, and the player must explain this word to others, but not using the word itself or its synonyms. So you talk about "arguments" about the abolition of the execution, never saying out loud the main word for which everything was started.

Or, an example of homosexuality: the key concept is that SEX = REPRODUCTION, and as a consequence FAMILY gets support BECAUSE SHE GROWS FUTURE CITIZENSthat the state has its most important resource (otherwise who will invent, work, protect it in 10-20 years?).

You are playing a game when you cannot name the main word, but inventing a bunch with your right hand behind your left ear - well, for a mad dog, 7 miles is not a hook, as you know

SO, SOUND TABOO ADDING "RATIONALITY" TO CYNISM

STEP 4

Here the window shifts again - to the pop culture of the problem

METHOD OF COUNTERACTION:

Mock by analogy + do not stop the previous opening of the taboo, anti-newspeak, other techniques of the previous steps.

Mockery, bringing to the point of absurdity.

STEP 5

Finally, all the preliminary work has been done, society is ripe for the legalization of the abomination and its transformation into politics.

Will be done through and / or politicians serving the western occupier of Russia.

It’s as if it’s too late, but you shouldn’t stop denouncing the creatures.

Only by getting rid of the confusion of Newspeak and seeing the situation in real terms can people generally notice the problem and realize it.

THAT'S WHY

(a) continue the previous

(b) as a mocking move, suggesting that politicians start with themselves. Constantly interested (at meetings, in interviews, in questions on radio broadcasts, anywhere) how the ideas of homosexuality or the legalization of drugs are being implemented in their families.

AND ADD from myself another central principle: the method of opening a technique

He's very successful.

Sharpie spent months, if not years, honing his method of deception. This is a noticeable waste of time and an investment of resources.

However, the deception is easy to explain in a matter of minutes. If a lot of people understand the deception, it will stop working.

Therefore (comment-answer in the spirit of -) is so deeply and systemically prohibited in Western media … There (playing along with the NWO) discussions or the presenter immediately interrupts such remarks, analyzing the logic of the moves of those arguing that.

No arguments that the analysis of logic is not will be heard, and you will be deprived of your speech.

Everything that I wrote above - the very pulling out into the light of the fact that the enemy is using the principles - CAN BE APPLIED in discussion with this public. This will be "promulgating the technique", commenting on how the trick is done at the moment when the magician is trying to pull another ace out of his sleeve.

This is how voicing taboos would work, or naming things in anti-newspeak, and so on.

Emdrone