iPhone X Confirms the Unabomber’s Prophecy: Everything is Centralized
Ever heard of “the Unabomber”? He was sentenced to life in prison in 1995 after killing 3 and injuring 23 people from 1978 to 1995 with homemade bombs. He was used in the media to associate anarchists and anti-government activists with domestic terrorism.
In 2017, mainstream media articles are actually recognizing his foresight to the technocracy we find being built around us, with headlines such as this one from the Chicago Tribune reading “The iPhone X proves the Unabomber was right.”
According to the article:
The introduction of the new iPhone X — which features wireless charging, facial recognition and a price tag of $999 — appears to be a minor event in the advance of technology. But it’s an excellent illustration of something that has long gone unrecognized: The Unabomber had a point.
Not about blowing people up in an effort to advance his social goals. Ted Kaczynski’s campaign to kill and maim chosen victims with explosives was horrific in the extreme and beyond forgiveness. But his 35,000-word manifesto, published in 1995, provided a glimpse of the future we inhabit, and his foresight is a bit unsettling.”
Kaczynski said “Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.)
Ted was an exceptionally intelligent young man. He graduated high school early at the age of 16, receiving a scholarship to go to Harvard.
He started college at Harvard at the age of 16 thanks to the scholarship, but what is a “scholarship?” It is an offer to have your college tuition be paid for, by some entity or corporation so you can repay them with a favor.
Scholarships come with strings attached, and in this case, the string was Kaczynski’s unwitting participation in a psychologically abusive experiment at Harvard.
As a young sophomore in college, he participated in a “purposely brutalizing psychological experiment,” led by a Harvard psychologist named Henry Murray. The students were made into subjects, some of which received “scholarships,” recognized for their intelligence but essentially pimped out.
They were told they would be debating personal beliefs and philosophy with a fellow student, and they were instructed to write personal, from the heart essays regarding their aspirations and deepest personal beliefs.
Then, an anonymous attorney would analyze the personal information, and confront, belittle, and psychologically abuse the student the worst he could with the content of what the student wrote, unleashing “vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive” attacks on students such as Ted.
The abuse was filmed, and electrodes monitored the subject’s reactions physically. Is Harvard pimping out students and psychologically abusing them for experiments unusual to you?
It’s the way Harvard, Stanford, and all the other prestigious academic institutions in the US have always behaved. In fact, they aided the spread of both coercive sterilization and biological warfare development during the same time they experimented on Ted.
Ted was a student at Harvard just 10 years after Harvard helped the War Research Service start developing biological agents to test on Americans, with the vaccine producer Merck and Co’s president leading the War Research Service.
What did Kaczynski see that made him change from an ambitious, semi-reclusive and intelligent student to an alleged bomber? Maybe it was his experience in academia, from Harvard, to the University of Michigan where he received his master’s and doctoral degrees in mathematics in the mid- late 60’s. Did he see “the system” and the technocratic structure it was creating and make decisions based on that?
For once, upon initial investigation it does not seem as if “the Unabomber” was some FBI informant or dupe used to carry out a terror plot. In my opinion he sounds like he meant what he said and did what he wanted to do, rather than being a Timothy McVeigh.
This documentary explains the culture of the 90’s with FBI informants, of the Waco incident, and certain operations meant to divide anti-government groups and activists in the final decade of the 20th Century.
It seems as if this man was targeting the not so morally straight people at places like MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), who at that time were working closely with the US military and had been involved with geoengineering for several years before that.
While targeting those people is morally questionable, despite their participation in war crimes, the Unabomber also committed atrocities against innocent bystanders and others in addition to selected targets who were guilty of harming others.
So why is the mainstream Chicago Tribune talking about the Unabomber, and why does the media report on this?
Perhaps it is to associate anarchists and free thinkers with terrorists. The FBI operations in the 90’s with “domestic extremist groups” certainly played a role in equating free thinkers with terrorists in the minds of regular people.