+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

  1. Link to Post #1
    Canada Avalon Member kfm27917's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th June 2019
    Location
    Kamloops BC
    Age
    80
    Posts
    58
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 255 times in 51 posts

    Default The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

    The Overton window is the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.[1][2] According to Overton, the window contains the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office in the current climate of public opinion.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

    today an interesting article at https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...overton-window
    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

    ~ Noam Chomsky

    The plutocrat-owned narrative managers of the political/media class work constantly to shrink the Overton window, the spectrum of debate that is considered socially acceptable.They do this by framing more and more debates in terms of how the oligarchic empire should be sustained and supported, steering them away from debates about whether that empire should be permitted to exist at all.

    They get people debating whether there should be some moderate changes made or no meaningful changes at all, rather than the massive, sweeping changes we all know need to be made to the entire system.

    They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks.

    They get people debating violations of government secrecy laws, not whether the government has any business keeping those secrets from its citizenry in the first place.

    They get people debating how internet censorship should take place and whom should be censored, rather than whether any internet censorship should occur.

    They get people debating how and to what extent government surveillance should occur, not whether the government has any business spying on its citizens.

    They get people debating how subservient and compliant someone needs to be in order to not get shot by a police officer, rather than whether a police officer should be shooting people for those reasons at all.

    They get people debating whether or not a group of protesters are sufficiently polite, rather than debating the thing those protesters are demonstrating against.

    They get people debating about whether this thing or that thing is a “conspiracy theory”, rather than discussing the known fact that powerful people conspire.

    They get people debating whether Tulsi Gabbard is a dangerous lunatic, a Russian asset, a Republican asset gearing up for a third party run, or just a harmless Democratic Party crackpot, rather than discussing the fact that her foreign policy would have been considered perfectly normal prior to 9/11.

    They get people debating whether Bernie Sanders is electable or too radical, rather than discussing what it says about the status quo that his extremely modest proposals which every other major country already implements are treated as something outlandish in the United States.

    They get people debating whether Jeremy Corbyn has done enough to address the Labour antisemitism crisis, rather than whether that “crisis” ever existed at all outside of the imaginations of establishment smear merchants.

    They get people debating whether Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren would win against Trump, rather than whether either of those establishment lackeys is a worthy nominee.

    They get people debating whether politicians should have corporate sponsors, rather than whether corporations should be allowed to interfere in the electoral process at all.

    They get people debating if the US should be pursuing regime change in Iran or Syria, rather than whether the US has any business overthrowing the governments of sovereign nations to begin with.

    They get people debating how many US troops should be in Syria, rather than whether that illegal invasion and occupation was ever legitimate in the first place.

    They get people debating whether to kill people slowly by sanctions or kill them quickly with bombs, rather than whether they should be killed at all.

    They get people debating whether or not some other country’s leader is an evil dictator, rather than whether it’s any of your business.

    They get people debating the extent to which Russia and Trump were involved in the Democratic Party’s 2016 email leaks, rather than the contents of those leaks.

    They get people debating what the response should be to Russian interference in the election, rather than whether that interference took place at all, and whether it would really matter if it did.

    They get people debating how much government support the poor should be allowed to have, rather than whether the rich should be allowed to keep what they’ve stolen from the poor.

    They get people debating what kind of taxes billionaires should have to pay, rather than whether it makes sense for billionaires to exist at all.

    They get people impotently debating the bad things other countries do, rather than the bad things their own country does which they can actually do something about.

    They get people debating what should be done to prevent the rise of China, rather than whether a multipolar world might be beneficial.

    They get people debating whether western cold war escalations against the Russian Federation are sufficient, rather than whether they want the horrors of the cold war to be resurrected in the first place.

    They get people debating what extent cannabis should be decriminalized, rather than whether the government should be allowed to lock anyone up for deciding to put any substance whatsoever in their own body.

    They get people debating whether or not US troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, rather than whether or not there should be any US troops outside of the US.

    They get people debating whether or not Julian Assange is “a real journalist”, rather than whether or not they should set legal precedents that necessarily criminalize acts of journalism.

    They get people debating the subtle details of bail protocol, political asylum, embassy cat hygiene and leaking rather than whether it should ever be legal to imprison a publisher for exposing government war crimes.

    They get people debating what the punishment should be for whistleblowers, not what the punishment should be for those they blow the whistle on.

    They get people debating whether Fox or MSNBC is the real “fake news”, rather than whether the entirety of mainstream media is oligarchic propaganda.

    They get people debating about how the things everyone is freaking out over Trump doing were previously done by Obama, rather than discussing why all US presidents do the same evil things regardless of their parties or campaign platforms.

    They get people debating what should be done with money, not whether the concept of money itself is in need of a complete overhaul.

    They get people debating what should be done with government, not whether the concept of government itself is in need of a complete overhaul.

    They get people debating whether the status quo should be reinforced or revised, rather than whether it should be flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

    They get people angrily debating things they can’t change, rather than constructively working on the things that they can.

    They get people shoving against each other in opposite directions, while they swiftly build a cage around us all.

  2. The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to kfm27917 For This Post:

    arborealis (5th November 2019), Baby Steps (6th November 2019), Bill Ryan (5th November 2019), BushPilot (5th November 2019), Craig (5th November 2019), enigma3 (5th November 2019), Gracy May (5th November 2019), Happyjak (5th November 2019), Hervé (5th November 2019), Inaiá (5th November 2019), Ioneo (5th November 2019), Jackson (5th November 2019), Michi (5th November 2019), mountain_jim (5th November 2019), Patient (5th November 2019), Pieman (5th November 2019), Satori (5th November 2019), Sophocles (5th November 2019), Sunny-side-up (5th November 2019), toppy (5th November 2019), Valerie Villars (5th November 2019), wondering (5th November 2019), yelik (5th November 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    4,581
    Thanked 7,328 times in 1,100 posts

    Default Re: The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

    Indeed so, and more to boot--sadly.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th November 2019), BushPilot (5th November 2019), Happyjak (5th November 2019), Hervé (5th November 2019), Pieman (5th November 2019), Sunny-side-up (5th November 2019), toppy (5th November 2019), wondering (5th November 2019), yelik (5th November 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    UK Avalon Member Sunny-side-up's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th April 2013
    Location
    Between here & there
    Age
    60
    Posts
    3,619
    Thanks
    39,095
    Thanked 16,344 times in 3,339 posts

    Default Re: The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

    So true.
    If we the world could follow the above, the world and civilisation would advance 1000's of years in it's development.

    That is where we should be and what a better world it could be.

    But we would be facing many catastrophes along the way.
    Pushing out those of the old system abusive ways, those with personal power and greed as their main agenda.
    I'm a simple easy going guy that is very upset/sad with the worlds hidden controllers!
    We need LEADERS who bat from the HEART!
    Rise up above them Dark evil doers, not within anger but with LOVE

  6. Link to Post #4
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,036 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

    Yep: professional trolls...

    From Thierry Meyssan, an analysis of the role of blatant fake news in the new propaganda schemes:


    by Thierry Meyssan Voltaire Network
    Damascus (Syria) | 5 November 2019
    For 18 years, we have been debating the strange evolution of the media, which seems to place less and less value on facts. We attribute this phenomenon to their democratization through social networks. It would be because from now on any person can become a journalist, that the quality of information would have collapsed. The right to speak should therefore be reserved for the elites.

    What if it’s exactly the opposite? If the censorship we are considering was not the answer to the phenomenon, but its continuity?

    Sisyphus painfully raises his rock to the top of the mountain of his ambitions, the stone then rolls inexorably down the other side to the underworld. Then he starts this absurd work again.Propaganda

    In political systems where Power needs the participation of the People, the purpose of propaganda is to get as many people as possible to adhere to a particular ideology and to mobilize them to apply it.

    The methods used to convince are the same whether one is acting in good or bad faith. However, in the 20th century, the use of lies and repetition, the elimination of different points of view, and recruitment into mass organizations were first theorized by British MP Charles Masterman, US journalist George Creel and especially German minister Joseph Goebbels with the devastating consequences that we know [1]. This is why, at the end of the two World Wars, the United Nations General Assembly adopted three resolutions condemning the use of deliberate lies in the media to provoke war and enjoining Member States to ensure the free flow of ideas, the only prevention of intoxication [2].

    While propaganda techniques have been perfected over the past 75 years and are systematically used in all international conflicts, they are gradually giving way to new techniques of influence in countries at peace: it is no longer a question of making the public adhere to an ideology and act in the service of power, but on the contrary of dissuading it from intervening, paralysing it.

    This strategy corresponds to a so-called "democratic" organization of society where the public has the capacity to sanction Power, which was rarely the case before.

    It has spread over the past 18 years with the "War on Terror". Many intellectuals have stressed the absurdity of this expression: terrorism is not an enemy, it is a military technique. However, we cannot wage war on war. Even if we did not understand it at the time, the invention of this paradoxical expression was intended to institute the era of post-truth.

    Post-truth
    Let us take the example of the recent execution of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. We all know that a helicopter squad cannot fly low across northern Syria without being seen by the population or spotted by Russian air defence systems. The narrative that is told to us is clearly impossible. However, far from questioning what we consider propaganda, we are discussing whether the Caliph, cornered by the US Special Forces, blew himself up with two or three children.

    At other times, we would have agreed that an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us, starting with the death of the Caliph. Now we think otherwise. We accept that this factual element has been falsified, a priori for reasons of national security, and we consider the rest of the narrative as authentic. In the long run, we will forget our concern with this or other elements and publish encyclopedias that will tell this beautiful story with its most unlikely elements.

    In other words, we instinctively understand that this narrative does not tell facts, but conveys a message. We are therefore not positioning ourselves in the face of the facts, but in the face of the message as we have understood it: as Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was executed; Power remains in the United States of America.

    To move our consciousness from facts to message, speech writers have an obligation to deliver an inconsistent narrative. It is not an unfortunate mistake on their part that is repeated, but a technical requirement of their work.

    In classical propaganda, the aim was to tell coherent stories, if necessary by concealing certain facts or falsifying them. Not anymore. Because we no longer try to convince with beautiful stories, if necessary by getting comfortable with reality. But we are addressing an intermediate state of consciousness through which we convey messages. We are aware that this helicopter affair is impossible, but we can reason by eliminating it from our field of consciousness. A part of our intellect has been inhibited.

    We lie to ourselves.

    We can find a very large number of examples of the use of this packaging technique in recent years. All those I could mention will make most of my readers nervous because each example requires us to recognize that we have been fooled with our own complicity. We hate to have our mistakes pointed out to us.

    A small example anyway. It is ancient, but fundamental. It still plays a vital role today. During the attacks of September 11, airlines immediately published complete boarding lists of passengers and personnel who had died. Two days later, the FBI Director presented his account of the 19 hijackers who, in his opinion, had carried out the attacks. However, none of them, according to the airlines’ first-hand accounts, had boarded the four aircraft. His version is therefore impossible. Eighteen years later, however, we continue to discuss the personalities of these individuals.

    Antidote
    For the past 18 years, we have been told that by offering everyone the ability to express themselves on a blog or social networks, technological progress has devalued public speech. Anyone can say anything. In the past, only politicians and professional journalists had the opportunity to express themselves. They ensured the quality of their interventions and writings. Today the vulgum pecus, the ignorant crowd, takes bladders for lanterns and spreads fake news.

    However, it is exactly the opposite. Leading politicians, starting with President George Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Tony Blair, have assumed inconsistent speeches to inhibit the reactions of the public in general and their constituents in particular. This technique substitutes absurdity for truth as others substituted lies. It has destroyed the functioning of the democratic systems that ordinary people are trying to restore with their means.

    CRT televisions display 625-line images. It suffices that one of them be blurred for us to perceive so it alone in the image. On the same principle, it is enough to hear a single different point of view for the lies of omnipresent propaganda to be obvious. That is why propaganda, when it lies, requires relentless censorship. But if the lie introduces an inconsistency into the discourse so that this inconsistency becomes voluntarily obvious, alternative points of view should no longer be censored. On the contrary, we must let them express themselves and highlight them by publicly denouncing some of them as fake news.

    The antidote to post-truth is not the verification of facts, this has always been the basis of the work of journalists and historians, it is the restoration of logic. This is why a new form of censorship is needed today. Most Facebook users have been logged out at one time or another. In countless cases, users are unable to understand why they have been censored. They search in vain for which prohibited word would have been detected by a computer, or which uncivil position would have been prohibited by a supervisor. In reality, what they are often accused of and arbitrarily sanctioned for is restoring logic to their reasoning.


    Translation Roger Lagassé


    [1] “The techniques of modern military propaganda”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 18 May 2016.

    [2] “Journalists who engage in war propaganda must be held accountable”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 16 August 2011.
    Last edited by Hervé; 5th November 2019 at 13:10.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    earthdreamer (6th November 2019), mountain_jim (5th November 2019), Pieman (5th November 2019), Sophocles (5th November 2019), Valerie Villars (5th November 2019)

  8. Link to Post #5
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    Dutch
    Age
    53
    Posts
    3,283
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 17,010 times in 2,786 posts

    Default Re: The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

    Political commentator Joshua Treviño has postulated that the degrees (stages) of acceptance of public ideas are roughly:
    1. Unthinkable
    2. Radical
    3. Acceptable
    4. Sensible
    5. Popular
    6. Policy
    Me:
    1. Assumed Systematically (Willfully) Ignored
    2. Label it as "Extreme" or "Nuts" or "The Fringe"
    3. Artificial 'Paradigm Change': Plausible, Considering, Imagine
    4. "Makes Sense To Do", Mass Media Promotions & Extensive Suggestive Repeatings
    5. Orchestrated Push via Collectivism, Group Think, Peer Pressure, Mass Indoctrination via MSM Networks
    6. Policy, Unjust (Insane) Laws, Orwellian Dystopian Technocracy
    ~no need2follow anyone only consider to broaden (y)our horizon of possibilities
    ~new: Stop5G.net & FB Groups/Stop5G

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts