To rule over the long term, one must be fully in control of their myths. Dr Josef Mengele, the notorious “Angel of Death” of Auschwitz, whose purported experimentation on children led to the Nuremberg Code for physicians, casts such a very long and culturally inexhaustible shadow upon the world. He is famously known for his legendary selection of nearly half a million victims for the gas chamber, that much celebrated mechanism of pejorative victimization. A device that, despite an omnipotent legacy of modern media fabrication, still remains in great dispute as to whether it ever existed outside the multitude of reels of Hollywood celluloid.
Much less trumpeted, and generally subsumed in the dismissive hush of officialdom, is the factual narrative of one Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the father of the infamous MK-Ultra, a person of Jewish-Hungarian extraction, whose sponsored ‘research’ upon unwitting subjects and was directly financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. The same organization that currently influences the public education of the majority of children in the United States and quite incidentally funded various eugenic initiatives on behalf of the former employer and collaborator of Dr. Joseph Mengele, Otmar Freiherr on Veschuer. A proof perhaps of the theory of six degrees of separation? Or maybe something much more deliciously conspiratorial as fertile soil for birthing another inexhaustible urban legend conspiracy theory myth? Who after all does one believe?
The “Social Network”, a 2010 film directed by David Fincher, and ghost written by producer and script doctor Aaron Benjamin Sorkin, two men whose careers both seem perpetually caught in the genre of psychological audience manipulation, seems less a biography and more an attempt at public coronation on the behalf of the current elitist cult of self-made bootstrapping modern Liberal ‘genius’ billionaires. An ‘all in the family’ enterprise, the modern Hollywood myth making process. The contemporary Mengele moment now enjoyed by the film’s hero who it seems has used his 29.5 billion dollar empire building toy to play with the emotions of its members by the conscious manipulation of news articles for internal and independent research. And of course using the surreptitious resources of the company to tally the results of same for whatever purpose that seems ‘useful’. A direct violation incidentally of the Nuremburg code which stipulates that subjects are to be informed of experimentation and their consent sought as willing participants. But hey, he is not a ‘Dr’ and we are not patients. Or, are we?
Well ‘we’ all intimately are aware of the institutional inflexibility of framework that is crafted for routinely garnering assent from the general public as being the scrolling labyrinth of small print and implied consent toggles summarily demanding complete submission before begging entry at the gates by any contemporary mega-corporate entity. “Arbeit Macht Frei” “Abandon all hope all ye who enter here!” “By entering your current phone number we are able to ‘help’ in sure your safety and security in properly identifying your account.” And the inevitable obsession by medical professionals in their customary introductory obsession with asking all their patient’s how they feel today. This inevitably after administering any combination of enigmatic and obtuse treatments of varying effect. “Do you feel bad? or Good?” Perhaps a callback to the good old days of Operation Big City and Project 112 in the 1950’s where San Francisco was unwittingly sprayed with clouds of bacteria. An idea of its time that may incidentally be revived by our own beloved Homeland Security.
Of course, to date, in honor I suppose of the many documented and undocumented unethical experimentation programs that have been foisted upon the public at large, no government sponsored researcher has ever been brought to trial.