Ontological Shock, Milton Friedman, and Social Control
In her book “The Shock Doctrine,” Naomi Klein explores the case of Dr. Ewen Cameron, a physician who believed that electroshock therapy could eliminate negative aspects of the psyche, making way for a completely new identity to be formed from the ground up.
This concept echoes the ideology of Milton Friedman, the revered economist among capitalists and advocates of free markets. Friedman posited that the state of shock following a disaster provides a prime opportunity for society to be reshaped.
Prominent figures like Thiel, Musk, Yarvin, and their billionaire counterparts appear to be interested in transforming society into a techno-feudalist structure. Could their increasing focus on UFO disclosures be more than just a fascination with technology? Might it also serve as a way to leverage ‘ontological shock’ in a manner akin to Friedman’s ideas for societal restructuring?
Your post raises thought-provoking connections between the ideas of Naomi Klein, Milton Friedman, and the potential implications of ufo disclosure in the context of societal control. The notion of “ontological shock” can indeed serve as a precursor to significant societal shifts, as catastrophic events or revelations often lead to a fundamental re-evaluation of beliefs and structures.
Drawing parallels between Dr. Ewen Cameron’s controversial practices and Friedman’s economic theories highlights how trauma and disorientation can create openings for radical transformation. This aligns with the strategies employed by influential figures in the tech industry—such as Thiel and Musk—who seem to envision a world reshaped by their ideologies and technological advancements.
The suggestion that billionaire interests might be leveraging ufo disclosure as a tool for exploiting ontological shock is fascinating. The revelation of extraterrestrial life or advanced technologies could instigate profound shifts in societal perception, trust in institutions, and ultimately governance. By positioning themselves as the architects of this new order, they could guide society into accepting a new paradigm that favors their vision of a techno-feudalist state.
While these ideas can seem speculative, they resonate with historical patterns where crises have been used to implement sweeping changes. It calls for a critical examination of the narratives we are fed and the motivations behind these influential figures. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering an informed public discourse about the future we are heading toward.