The Technology of Implementing “Values”

How to legalize anything—from euthanasia to incest. American sociologist Joseph Overton described a technology for changing society’s attitude toward things that were once considered absolutely unacceptable. After reading this, your view of the world we live in may change completely.

The Overton Window Explained

According to the Overton Window, for every idea or issue in society, there is a so-called window of opportunity. Within this window, an idea can or cannot be widely discussed, openly supported, promoted, or even legislated. The window shifts, changing the range of possibilities—from the “unthinkable,” which is completely alien to public morality and totally rejected, to “current policy,” meaning it is widely discussed, accepted by the masses, and enshrined in law.

This isn’t brainwashing in the traditional sense, but rather a set of subtler techniques. Their effectiveness comes from consistent, systematic application and the fact that the society being influenced doesn’t even notice it’s happening.

Below, I’ll break down, step by step, how society first starts to discuss something unacceptable, then considers it appropriate, and finally accepts a new law that protects what was once unthinkable.

Step-by-Step: From Unthinkable to Law

Let’s take something completely unimaginable as an example—say, cannibalism, the idea of legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other. Pretty extreme, right?

Obviously, right now (as of 2014), it’s impossible to launch a campaign for cannibalism—society would be outraged. This means the issue of legalizing cannibalism is at the zero stage of the Overton Window, called “Unthinkable.” Let’s model how this unthinkable idea could move through all the stages of the window.

1. Making the Unthinkable Discussable

Overton described a technology that allows any idea to be legalized. Note: he didn’t just propose a concept or share his thoughts—he described a working technology, a sequence of actions that inevitably leads to the desired result. As a weapon for destroying human communities, this technology can be more effective than a nuclear bomb.

At first, the topic of cannibalism is disgusting and completely unacceptable. It’s not something to discuss in the press or polite company. It’s unthinkable, absurd, taboo. The first move of the Overton Window is to shift cannibalism from the unthinkable to the radical.

We have freedom of speech, right? So why not talk about cannibalism? Scientists are supposed to discuss everything—there are no forbidden topics for them. So, let’s organize an ethnological symposium on “Exotic Rituals of Polynesian Tribes.” We’ll discuss the history, introduce it into academic discourse, and get an authoritative statement about cannibalism.

See? It turns out you can talk about cannibalism and still appear respectable. The Overton Window has already moved. Society’s attitude shifts from absolute rejection to something more neutral.

At the same time, a “Society of Radical Cannibals” will inevitably appear, even if only online. The media will notice and quote them. This creates a “radical scarecrow”—the “bad cannibals”—to contrast with another scarecrow: “fascists who want to burn anyone different.” For now, it’s enough to publish stories about what British scientists or radical weirdos think about eating human flesh.

Result of the first move: The taboo topic is introduced, the sacredness is broken, and the problem is no longer black and white—there are now “shades of gray.”

2. From Radical to Possible

The next step moves the topic from radical to possible. We keep quoting “scientists.” After all, you can’t turn away from knowledge, right? Anyone who refuses to discuss cannibalism is labeled a prude or a hypocrite.

To fight hypocrisy, we need to give cannibalism an elegant new name, so “fascists” can’t label dissenters with the “C-word.” Creating a euphemism is crucial. To legalize the unthinkable, you must change its name. Cannibalism becomes “anthropophagy,” and soon even that term is replaced, as it too becomes “offensive.” The goal is to separate the word from its meaning, depriving opponents of language. Cannibalism turns into anthropophagy, then anthropophilia, like a criminal changing names and passports.

Meanwhile, a supporting precedent is created—historical, mythological, current, or even invented, but legitimized. This serves as “proof” that anthropophilia can be legalized.

• “Remember the legend of the selfless mother who gave her blood to her dying children?”
• “Ancient gods ate everyone—Romans thought it was normal!”
• “Even Christians have ritual cannibalism—drinking blood and eating the flesh of their god. Are you accusing the church?”

The main goal at this stage is to partially remove eating people from criminal prosecution, even if just once, in some historical moment.

3. From Possible to Rational

Once a legitimizing precedent is provided, the Overton Window moves from possible to rational. The problem is now fragmented.

• “The desire to eat people is genetic, it’s human nature.”
• “Sometimes eating someone is necessary—there are extreme circumstances.”
• “Some people want to be eaten.”
• “Anthropophiles were provoked!”
• “Forbidden fruit is always sweeter.”
• “A free person has the right to decide what to eat.”
• “Don’t hide information—let everyone decide if they’re an anthropophile or anthropophobe.”
• “Is anthropophilia harmful? That hasn’t been proven.”

A “battlefield” is artificially created in public consciousness. On the extremes are scarecrows—radical supporters and radical opponents of cannibalism. Real opponents—normal people who don’t want to see cannibalism normalized—are lumped in with the scarecrows and labeled as radical haters. The role of these scarecrows is to create the image of crazy, aggressive, fascist haters who want to burn cannibals, Jews, communists, and Black people alive. The media gives airtime to everyone except real opponents of legalization.

In this setup, so-called anthropophiles appear to be in the “reasonable middle,” from where they denounce “fascists of all kinds” with all the passion of “common sense and humanity.” “Scientists” and journalists now argue that humanity has always eaten each other from time to time, and that’s normal. Now the topic can move from rational to popular. The Overton Window shifts again.

4. From Rational to Popular

To popularize cannibalism, it needs to be supported by pop culture, linked to historical and mythological figures, and, if possible, modern media personalities. Anthropophilia floods the news and talk shows. People are eaten in blockbuster movies, song lyrics, and music videos.

One popularization technique is “Look Around You!”

• “Didn’t you know that a famous composer was an anthropophile?”
• “A well-known Polish screenwriter was an anthropophile and was even persecuted for it.”
• “How many were locked up in asylums! Millions exiled, stripped of citizenship! By the way, have you seen Lady Gaga’s new video ‘Eat me, baby’?”

At this stage, the topic goes mainstream and starts to self-replicate in mass media, show business, and politics. Another effective technique: the issue is endlessly discussed by information operators (journalists, TV hosts, activists), while experts are excluded from the conversation.

Then, when everyone is bored and the discussion is stuck, a specially chosen professional steps in and says, “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s not what you think. The real issue is this, and here’s what we should do,” giving a very specific direction predetermined by the movement of the Window.

To justify supporters of legalization, criminals are humanized by creating a positive image through unrelated characteristics.

• “They’re creative people. So what if he ate his wife?”
• “They truly love their victims. If he eats, he loves!”
• “Anthropophiles have high IQs and are otherwise very moral.”
• “Anthropophiles are victims themselves, life forced them.”
• “They were raised that way,” etc.

These twists are the essence of popular talk shows. “We’ll tell you a tragic love story! He wanted to eat her! She just wanted to be eaten! Who are we to judge? Maybe it’s love? Who are you to stand in the way of love?!”

5. From Popular to Policy

The fifth stage is when the Overton Window moves the topic from popular to current policy. Legislative groundwork begins. Lobby groups in power consolidate and come out of the shadows. Polls are published, supposedly showing high support for legalizing cannibalism. Politicians start making trial statements about legislating the issue. A new dogma is introduced: “Banning the eating of people is banned.”

This is the signature dish of liberalism—tolerance as a ban on taboos, a ban on correcting and preventing destructive deviations in society. During the final stage, as the Window moves from “popular” to “current policy,” society is already broken. The most active part may still resist legalizing what was recently unthinkable, but overall, society has surrendered. It has accepted defeat. Laws are passed, norms of human existence are changed (destroyed), and the issue inevitably reaches schools and kindergartens, meaning the next generation will grow up with no chance of survival.

How to Break the Technology

The Overton Window, as described by Overton, moves most easily in a tolerant society—one without ideals and, as a result, no clear distinction between good and evil.

Want to talk about your mother being a prostitute? Want to publish an article about it? Sing a song? Prove that being a prostitute is normal and even necessary? That’s the technology described above. It relies on permissiveness.

No taboos. Nothing sacred. No concepts so sacrosanct that even discussing them is forbidden, and any attempt to drag them through the mud is immediately stopped. None of that exists. What is there? So-called freedom of speech, turned into the freedom to dehumanize. Before our eyes, one by one, the barriers that protected society from the abyss of self-destruction are being removed. Now the road is open.

You think you can’t change anything alone? You’re absolutely right—one person can’t do much. But you are personally obligated to remain human. And a human can find a solution to any problem. What one person can’t do, people united by a common idea can. Look around you.