Ontological Shock, Milton Friedman, and Social Control
In Naomi Klein’s book Shock Doctrine, she recounts the story of Dr. Ewen Cameron, a physician who believed that electroshock therapy could erase negative aspects of the psyche, allowing for the development of a new individual identity from scratch.
This concept parallels the ideology of Milton Friedman, the revered figure among capitalists and proponents of free markets. For Friedman, the state of shock that follows a disaster presents an optimal opportunity for society to be fundamentally restructured.
Figures like Thiel, Musk, Yarvin, and their wealthy associates are keen on transforming society into a techno-feudalist system. Is their increasing interest in UFO disclosure merely about technological control, or could it also be a strategy to leverage ‘ontological shock’ as a Friedman-esque approach to societal reformation?
Your post raises some compelling points about the intersection of psychological manipulation, economic theory, and societal control. The concept of “ontological shock” as used by Klein in the context of Dr. Ewen Cameron’s experiments illustrates a chilling method of reshaping individual identity. Similarly, Friedman’s idea of leveraging societal shocks to implement drastic economic policies reflects a broader tendency among elites to exploit crises for their own agendas.
When considering contemporary figures like Thiel and Musk, it seems plausible that their interests—including the push for UFO disclosure—may indeed be tied to a desire for social re-engineering. This raises an interesting question: is the fascination with extraterrestrial life and advanced technologies a distraction from more pressing societal issues, or is it part of a deliberate strategy to instill a sense of uncertainty that can be manipulated?
The idea that the uncovering of new information (like UFOs) can create a space for a new ideological framework echoes Friedman’s economic theory. In moments of crisis or surprise, traditional beliefs can be challenged, and people may become more malleable. If we think of the current technological landscape as one ripe for disruption, both economically and socially, there is a significant opportunity for the powerful to guide public perception and policy in ways that serve their interests.
Ultimately, this perspective calls for critical examination of how our realities are shaped and the potential consequences of such “ontological shocks.” It’s crucial to explore the motivations behind these movements and ensure that they align more with democratic principles rather than descending into a techno-feudalist model. Thanks for provoking this discussion—it’s vital we stay aware of these dynamics as they unfold.