Harvard & The CIA Made the “Unabomber”

Universities have always been involved in mind control experimentation. Which is why no one should be surprised that the Trans Ideology with it’s bizarre language and pronouns came out of and is associated with Universities and the edu-indoctrination complex. We should understand that the mass mind experimentation done to destroy humanity during the so called pandemic have their roots in the very long history of intelligence ops, universities and mind control experimentation- Shattering minds. Destroying lives.

Kaczynski Died by Suicide in Prison, Sources Say

I’m wondering if it was the medically approved (MAID) suicide the state so loves to push on people these days

“The circumstances of his suicide are unclear, and it is uncertain whether prison officials could have done more to ensure his safety.

Given that the bulk of the story is about Jeffrey Epstein it seems the media wants you to believe he died by his own hand- I question that. As a matter of course!

Through research at the Murray Center and in the Harvard archives I found that, among its other purposes, Henry Murray’s experiment was intended to measure how people react under stress. Murray subjected his unwitting students, including Kaczynski, to intensive interrogation—what Murray himself called “vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive” attacks, assaulting his subjects’ egos and most-cherished ideals and beliefs.

But in September of 1958, when Ted Kaczynski, just sixteen, arrived at Harvard, 8 Prescott Street was a more unusual place, a sort of incubator.

But was he “sick”. Was he insane? Or did he realize the profound sickness in a society that would allow for human experimentation. In universities and outward into societyDid he recognize the evil inherent in that system. Was he a revolutionary?

It is true that many believed Kaczynski was insane because they needed to believe it.

But the truly disturbing aspect of Kaczynski and his ideas is not that they are so foreign but that they are so familiar.

The ideas it expresses are perfectly ordinary and unoriginal, shared by many Americans. Its pessimism over the direction of civilization and its rejection of the modern world are shared especially with the country’s most highly educated.

The Murray Experiment

Perhaps no figure at Harvard at this time better embodied the ongoing war between science and humanism than Henry A. “Harry” Murray, a professor in Harvard’s Department of Social Relations. A wealthy and blue-blooded New Yorker, Murray was both a scientist and a humanist, and he was one of Lewis Mumford’s best friends. He feared for the future of civilization in an age of nuclear weapons, and advocated implementing the agenda of the World Federalist Association, which called for a single world government. The atomic bomb, Murray wrote in a letter to Mumford, “is the logical & predictable result of the course we have been madly pursuing for a hundred years.” The choice now facing humanity, he added, was “One World or No World.” Yet unlike Mumford, Murray maintained a deep faith in science. He saw it as offering a solution by helping to transform the human personality. “The kind of behavior that is required by the present threat,” Murray wrote Mumford, “involves transformations of personality such as never occurred quickly in human history; one transformation being that of National Man into World Man.” Crucial to achieving this change was learning the secret of successful relationships between people, communities, and nations. And coming to understand these “unusually successful relations” was the object of Murray’s particular research: the interplay between two individuals, which he called the “dyad.”

The concept of the dyad was, in a sense, Murray’s attempt to build a bridge between psychology and sociology. Rather than follow Freud and Jung by identifying the individual as the fundamental atom in the psychological universe, Murray chose the dyad—the smallest social unit—and in this way sought to unite psychiatry, which studied the psyches of individuals, and sociology, which studied social relations. This kind of research, he apparently hoped, might (as he put it in a 1947 paper) promote “the survival and further evaluation of Modern Man,” by encouraging the emergence of the new “world man” and making world peace more likely.

Murray’s interest in the dyad, however, may have been more than merely academic. The curiosity of this complex man appears to have been impelled by two motives—one idealistic and the other somewhat less so. He lent his talents to national aims during World War II. Forrest Robinson, the author of a 1992 biography of Murray, wrote that during this period he “flourished as a leader in the global crusade of good against evil.” He was also an advocate of world government. Murray saw understanding the dyad, it seems, as a practical tool in the service of the great crusade in both its hot and cold phases. (He had long shown interest, for example, in the whole subject of brainwashing.) During the war Murray served in the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA, helping to develop psychological screening tests for applicants and (according to Timothy Leary) monitoring military experiments on brainwashing. In his book (1979), John Marks reported that General “Wild Bill” Donovan, the OSS director, “called in Harvard psychology professor Henry ‘Harry’ Murray” to devise a system for testing the suitability of applicants to the OSS. Murray and his colleagues “put together an assessment system … [that] tested a recruit’s ability to stand up under pressure, to be a leader, to hold liquor, to lie skillfully, and to read a person’s character by the nature of his clothing. … Murray’s system became a fixture in the OSS.”

One of the tests that Murray devised for the OSS was intended to determine how well applicants withstood interrogations. As he and his colleagues described it in their 1948 report “Selection of Personnel for Clandestine Operations—Assessment of Men,”

Summarizing- This man Murray, who devised experiments to understand how well applicants withstood interrogation (torture of all sort) took his show to Harvard University and experimented on students.

Even anticipation of this test was enough to cause some applicants to fall apart. The authors wrote that one person “insisted he could not go through with the test.” They continued, “A little later the director … found the candidate in his bedroom, sitting on the edge of his cot, sobbing.”

Before the war Murray had been the director of the Harvard Psychological Clinic. After the war Murray returned to Harvard, where he continued to refine techniques of personality assessment. In 1948 he sent a grant application to the Rockefeller Foundation proposing “the development of a system of procedures for testing the suitability of officer candidates for the navy.” By 1950 he had resumed studies on Harvard undergraduates that he had begun, in rudimentary form, before the war, titled “Multiform Assessments of Personality Development Among Gifted College Men.” The experiment in which Kaczynski participated was the last and most elaborate in the series. In their postwar form these experiments focused on stressful dyadic relations, designing confrontations akin to those mock interrogations (torture) he had helped to orchestrate for the OSS.

Kaczynski began to put together a theory to explain his unhappiness and anger. Technology and science were destroying liberty and nature. The system, of which Harvard was a part, served technology, which in turn required conformism. By advertising, propaganda, and other techniques of behavior modification, this system sought to transform men into automatons, to serve the machine.

9 replies on “Harvard & The CIA Made the “Unabomber””

Ted Kaczynski could not have been insane and write so cogently about what we now know, for absolute certain, is happening to our crumbling social structure in the steady advance toward One World Government.

I doubt I could kill anyone, but I wouldn’t mourn our current PM’s demise, and especially not that of his senile WEF mentors/teachers. If anyone is blood-thirsty, it’s the old rich guys who, in their quest for obscene wealth, failed to experience the warm sense of accomplishment and superiority they hoped for — and now covet the entire planet, all countries, regardless of their figurehead “leaders”.

Trudeau (along with Freeland) is clearly on an externally-guided mission to bring Canadians to their knees, to render them totally reliant on “government” for their “truth”, their way of life, their very existence. To me, this is pure evil, an attack on the collective psyche, as it sadly was experienced by Kaczynski.

May he rest in peace.

I do not think he was insane- My opinion is the system needs us, you, me and others to believe he was insane so we would disregard the many salient issues he raised.

Harvard and the CIA made the Unabomber who he was through the very mechanisms he wrote about- behaviour modification, propaganda and advertising and the education system-

Look at what Bernay’s wrote
*”The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society*

To provide you with the illusion of democracy you’d have to be manipulated into the belief

*Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”*

It’s all out in the open

Hi Penny: I don’t think he was insane; didn’t mean to suggest that; I imagine he was pretty much heartsick, as any truly thinking person must be these days.

He definitely was not afraid of death, but even that doesn’t necessarily mean he killed himself. Who knows what goes on behind prison walls? His story had recently come to the fore again; people were remembering him. Consequently, he may well have been murdered.

(Even I mentioned him in my final blog report, though I don’t recall ever having done so before).

Hi Yaya, I’m sorry if it seemed my comment was aimed at you- It wasn’t. I agree with the heartsick and have my doubts on how his death came about- but we’ll never know
I’ve got to reread your swansong- thought it will sadden me a great deal to no longer have you around 🙁

Hi Penny: Just so you know, I didn’t take your comment personally. Just wanted to show that I agreed with you. And don’t wory: I’m still around — lurking in the background .
If I don’t comment, it’s only because I can’t think of anything brilliant to say. 😉

I wish we both did reach a larger audience, but, bloggers like Yaya, me and others have been left to the fringes..
In favour of limited hang out and agenda pushers- Rather than a plethora of opinion, offering up subtle insights, we get what feels like lots an attempt to limit discourse and keep us within certain parameters- I think of the whole Covid psyop and a site like MoA- He was a covid cult adherent and notice he’s still around and bigger than ever? It seems as if there are acceptable challenges to authority but that’s limited, or what can or can’t be challenged. Instinct or something else? Some people seem to know how to keep themselves out of the censorship grasp- I don’t. I talk what I talk and write about what interests me. And explain why I put forth the ideas that are here. It’s all that I can do- Sometimes I wander, but, that’s the nature of my interests and my world- not one note. Rooted in the real environment and continuous walking on this planet for 30+ yrs- Gazing at the waters of the Great Lakes- seeing natures patterns and her wildness too- It’s a big world and we really are a part of it!

Wanna hear my conundrum? I moved to my current apartment because it’s close to the river, and geese and ducks and birds of all kinds. Unfortunately, after a couple of happy years, the city took over the building and doesn’t do so well on the maintenance and safety front (as mentioned in my farewell blog item).
It does seem true that there’s a price to pay for everything. 😉

Leave a Reply