That damned Overton Window, how do we smash it, or rather, smash it and the wall holding the window?

That window that shows the only acceptable opinions respectable people can hold.  Self imposed, open to manipulation.

Americans Are Living Under “Intellectual Martial Law”

by Tyler Durden
Jul 10, 2017 4:40 PM

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via,

The disgrace of America’s putative intellectual class is nearly complete as it shoves the polity further into dysfunction and toward collapse. These are the people Nassim Taleb refers to as “intellectuals-yet-idiots.” Big questions loom over this dynamic: How did the thinking class of America sink into this slough of thoughtlessness? And why – what is motivating them?

One path to understanding it can be found in this sober essay by Neal Devers, The Overton Bubble, published two years ago on — a friend turned me on to it the other day (dunno how I missed it). The title is a reference to the phenomenon known as the Overton Window. Wikipedia summarizes it:

“The Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept…. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy….”

Devers refines the definition:

“The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.”

This raises another question: who exactly is in this corps of “respectable people” who set the parameters of acceptable thought? Primarily, the mainstream media — The New York Times, The WashPo, CNN, etc. — plus the bureaucratic functionaries of the permanent government bureaucracy, a.k.a. the Deep State, who make and execute policy, along with the universities which educate the “respectable people” (the thinking class) into the prevailing dogmas and shibboleths of the day, and finally the think tanks and foundations that pay professional “experts” to retail their ideas.

The Overton Window can be viewed as a mechanism of political control, demonizing anyone who departs from the consensus of respectable thought, and especially if they express their heresies in public speech.

This has consequences.

Deavers explains:

“The trouble with the Overton Window as a mechanism of political control, and with politicization of speech and thought in general, is that it causes significant collateral damage on the ability of your society to think clearly.

If some thoughts are unthinkable and unspeakable, and the truth happens in some case to fall outside of polite consensus, then your ruling elite and their society will run into situations they simply can’t handle….

An unwise political elite is one incapable of thinking clearly about their strategic situation, acting in concert, or sticking to a plan….

An insecure political elite is one which has either no sufficient mechanisms of political power short of the politicization of speech and thought, or is faced by such powerful but somehow never decisively powerful enemies that they need to permanently escalate to a state of vigorous politicization of speech and thought. We can compare this state to “intellectual martial law” for its structural similarity to the physical-security equivalent.”

We’re now living under that condition of “intellectual martial law.” The consequent degradation of thinking means that the polity can’t construct a coherent consensus about what is happening to it (or devise a plan for what to do about it). This is exactly the point where the Overton Window turns into an Overton Bubble, as described by Devers. The bubble comprises ideas that are assumed to be self-evident (though they actually aren’t) and notions that are potentially destructive of society, even suicidally so.”

Re: Overton window – a perfect tool in hands of pathologicals

The Overton Window concept was developed to describe the options of policy makers, but it can easily be extended to the control of the perception of reality.  I’m not crazy about the term ‘window’, it’s too passive.  ‘Bubble’ implies it will burst, why should it?  I’d prefer ‘lens’ or ‘blinders’.

It’s a description of mental illness or emotional/psychological maladaptation.  As such it’s a choice.  In the way the depression is a choice — a choice between attacking the gods (mom and dad) or turning the fury inwards.  It’s a mechanism of imposing blinders on the populace.  “Psychopaths, I’ve never met any.”

Similar concepts:  humans as herd animals (which we are), go along to get along, the cool crowd dictating what’s cool, normalcy bias, etc., etc.

Title: U-S-A, U-S-A, United States of Assassinations; Subtitle: Oopsie, it seems some people don’t appreciate being termed probable psychopaths


A relative of mine received a call last week.  The caller asked for my relative by name, when the answer was in the affirmative, the caller replied “murder, murder, murder”.  ‘I’se paid my money, and I’se taken my chances.’  They haven’t.  They didn’t sign up for this.  Therefore I am going public.

There have always be reasons to do so and reasons not to do so.  a) One always wishes for a higher level of proof, not just to make bald assertions.  b) I have enough problem with readers’ Assumed Normalcy Bias on the main subject, let alone on high tech assassination attempts.  c) My comment numbers have never recovered from my first account of a remotely induced arrhythmia attack (presumably through microwave technology) in It seems I’m being harassed — though, in fact, I had left out the punch line that it had been an assassination attempt.  So until now, I have chosen not to take this matter public.  However I can’t allow my relatives to be threatened.  Plus I have always owed it to others in danger, to warn them so they can recognize situations and take proper precautions.  Plus, recently the threats to myself have perhaps become physical again.  So here it is.

To those suffering from Assumed Normalcy Bias/Disorder/Psychosis and believe they can always pound triangular pegs into square holes in support of the world as they think they know it — this is not for you.  I have no desire to engage you.  This is a warning to those who need to be made aware of danger.

I am claiming that the arrhythmias shown above were induced remotely.  What else could I conclude, if the arrhythmias came and went with physical obstacles?  The time I started to realize this was during the 2011 attack above (which only covered two days and rarely repeated until this series).  On Seventh Ave. and 49th, there’s a subway entrance at a corner of a building.  At the very corner is a massive support column for the whole building.  Feeling poorly, I stepped out of the foot traffic to rest leaning against the interior of this column.  Immediately my heart started collecting itself, coming back into rhythm.  I was flabbergasted.  In the current series, one time I was walking on Broadway heading uptown, and suddenly my bare arms became physically warm (this only happened that one time) and Ali and Foreman started going at it in my chest.  As luck would have it, I was half a block from a scaffolded building.  So within 10 seconds I was starting to respond positively.  A block further, we were sitting in a restaurant.  Within 5 minutes I was totally fine.  I have many stories like this.

It seems that assassinations have gone medical and thus almost invisible.  The techniques seem to work over distances, through some materials, including windows.

These attacks commenced shortly after publishing and sending to the administration and de Blasio attorneys the post, Psychopaths gone wild jurisprudence, the psychopathic weaponization of the legal system and misuse of the law for political hits, psychopaths walking among us include . . ., in June of 2016.  The possible ‘psychopaths walking among us include[d]’:  Eric Holder, William Canary, and later, John J. Miller and Rikki Klieman (Clear and present danger).

I do have defenses and work arounds, so I no longer have the extreme arrhythmias of the top left two examples.  I don’t wish to state what they are, in case they have work arounds for my work arounds.  But it is not rocket science, research what interacts with microwaves and try all-the-above.  If the cause is not actually microwave in origin, the defenses would still interact with many other electro-magnetic waves also.

Let me add, at least this is a validation of my work.



Assumed similarity bias

Quote from Psychopaths and Love, excerpts and paragraphs [Blue bolding added] (

Do You Make This Simple (But Dangerous) Mistake About the Psychopathic Mind?

“Misinterpreting the behavior of a disordered character is the first step in the process of being victimized by them.” (Dr. George Simon)

. . . Assumed Similarity Bias — a mental shortcut that leads us to the unconscious assumption that others share the same or similar values, thoughts and beliefs. We automatically assume that others are just like we are, especially when it comes to the fundamental aspects of our characters that are so basic we never even give them a second thought — such as having a conscience.  [PW:  let me add additional descriptive terms:  normalcy bias, belief in basic human goodness bias, see-no-evil bias, mom and dad would have told me bias, keep reality within my current frame of reference bias, pound that square peg into that round hole bias, there’s nothing scary here bias, Captain Kangaroo [Mr. Rogers, etc.] never talked about this bias, everything traces back to childhood bias, etc.]

In other words, you never for a moment stop to consider that some people in fact have a drastically different way of being, one that is so foreign to you that you can’t even begin to grasp it.

. . .

“He doesn’t depend on our love because he ‘fears emptiness’… he depends on it because our love enables him to exploit and manipulate us. He doesn’t search for people to ‘cling to,’ he searches for people to VICTIMIZE. Don’t forget, we are dealing with a predator. You are attributing your feelings and motivations to him, when in fact they are not like yours at all. The anger is simply from frustration when he doesn’t get his needs met…They do not share our need for ‘authentic purpose.’ That’s your need, not the need of the psychopath. They have their own purpose, which is vastly different from your purpose.”

. . .

The truth is very difficult to understand from our own frame of reference. It’s important to understand it, though, because it is their significant differences that cause the harm we experience.

. . .

When we experience someone engaging in bad behavior of one kind or another, we think of it in terms of why WE might act that way and how WE would feel afterward. When we do this, we come up with the idea that the behavior may stem from insecurity, past wounds, fear, or a lack of love; and we imagine they must feel shame and guilt after treating us so badly. Because of this, we are more apt to forgive, to let things slide, to stick it out and see if things will change with love and acceptance and time.

But when the same things happen again and again, it comes time to face an important truth:

The only intelligent way to make judgements about people is to base those judgements on their patterns of behavior, and not on what we think the reasons for their behavior might be.

. . .

Unfortunately, traditional psychology still hangs on to the outdated belief that everyone is struggling with insecurities and fears, and teaches that this struggle is what causes problem behavior. This puts us at a disadvantage and leaves us vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. And it seems to say that the field of psychology itself is operating under its own ‘assumed similarity’ bias! 

. . .

It’s very difficult to understand how the psychopathic mind works because it is so totally different from what we know. I think it’s made even harder because we don’t want to believe it’s possible, and we don’t want to accept that the person we were with was not at all who or what we thought they were, and that nothing we believed about the relationship was true… and that it wasn’t even a relationship at all.  . . .  (