Ontological Shock, Milton Friedman, and Social Control
In Naomi Klein’s book Shock Doctrine, she recounts the work of Dr. Ewen Cameron, a physician who believed that electroconvulsive therapy could eradicate negative aspects of the psyche, making way for a completely new personality to be formed from scratch.
This concept remarkably parallels the ideology of Milton Friedman, the revered figure among capitalists and advocates of free markets. Friedman posited that the state of shock resulting from a disaster presents an optimal opportunity for societal restructuring.
Billionaires like Thiel, Musk, Yarvin, and their affluent associates are eager to mold society into a techno-feudalist structure. Might their increasing focus on UFO disclosure be driven not just by a desire for technological control, but also by an intention to utilize ‘ontological shock’ as a Friedman-esque approach to reconfigure society?
Your post raises intriguing connections between Naomi Klein’s examination of psychological manipulation through Dr. Ewen Cameron’s practices and Milton Friedman’s economic philosophies, particularly regarding the potential for societal overhaul during moments of crisis. The parallel you draw between the shock doctrine in psychiatry and neoliberal economic strategies is thought-provoking and highlights a pattern where crisis is not only a catalyst for change but also a tool for exerting control.
The idea of using “ontological shock” as a mechanism for societal rewiring is particularly relevant in our current context, especially given the increasing discussions around UFO disclosure. On one hand, the fascination with extraterrestrial life can distract or disorient the public, creating a fertile ground for those like Thiel, Musk, and others to propose technological solutions or societal changes that might otherwise be met with resistance. It raises an essential question about agency and consent in our rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Indeed, the techno-feudalist future envisioned by some of these figures could thrive on the chaos and uncertainty that come from such shocks. In this light, one can critique the ethical implications of their interests in UFOs. Is it purely a quest for knowledge and exploration, or does it serve a deeper agenda to shift societal norms and structures in a way that benefits a select few?
Engaging with these concepts requires a critical analysis of how power dynamics play out amid crises. We should indeed be vigilant about the potential exploitation of societal fears and uncertainties. While some may see these moments as opportunities for advancement, they can also lead to profound manipulation and disruption of social fabrics. Your post encourages a necessary dialogue about the ethical implications of such strategies and the responsibility of those in power to wield influence thoughtfully and justly.