Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

After 2001: Our Neotech World



A breathtaking skyline of New York City appeared. Exultant music played. The bold Du Pont oval filled the screen. Firm and steady words spoke of the marvels that man has created with steel and concrete. Yes, yes, one could eagerly agree. That was Du Pont. That was the story that should be told...exultant, bold, breathtaking. But that spine-tingling emotion lasted only a moment. The camera promptly zoomed into close-up shots of the "man in the street". With the focus on the group and the common man, the magnificent spell was broken.

Why did the moviemaker do that? Was he implying that the "man in the street" or the group was responsible for the great achievements symbolized by the skyline of New York? Was not that movie supposed to stress the individual? What about the few, uncommon individuals...the innovators, industrialists, scientists, and artists? It was those uncommon individuals who gave us the great values of "music, steel, and concrete". How could the moviemaker commit such an oversight? Or was it an oversight?

The scene shifted. A voice told us of Du Pont's 86 factories and 100 laboratories spanning the globe. From barren earth, factories of production rose majestically. For an instant, that thrilling emotion returned. Then came the jolt. The scene shifted. The voice changed. The value of Du Pont's factories was obliterated by a female voice sighing that the new plant will bring "A lot of young men, I hope."

Why was the moviemaker building heroic images of Du Pont only to shatter them? Why was the moviemaker purposely spoiling values? Why was he mixing poison with food? Did he not know the only results can be poison?

The movie continued. A statement was made, "Some men's urge to make life better takes them down wondrous roads." What were those wondrous roads? No explanation. Instead, the moviemaker raked the audience with a ludicrous pandemonium of old-fashioned cars speeding around corners, and water skiers engaged in spectacular falls. Another statement was made, "Man must be unique." The next scene showed a pie-eating contest and then a dozen or more youths in coon-skin coats riding in a single automobile. Mixing purity with poison...the mind with the mindless...values with non-values -- an ancient neocheating trick to destroy values. What was the moviemaker's motive?

What was the meaning of that film? The movie pressed onward. The narrator revealed that over 2500 Ph.D.s worked for Du Pont. The narrator then announced that today's science was a "meshing of groups". What did "meshing of groups" mean? No explanation. Was not this movie supposed to stress the individual? Again, what about those few individuals who were responsible for all the material values we have today? No mention was made of them.

The scene shifted to technical management in action. Hope surged for a glimpse of greatness. Now will the value of the individual appear? No. Instead of crisp, intelligent men making meaningful business decisions, the scene wilted into altruistic torpidity. A woman inarticulately spoke about helping mankind by nitrogen fixation. She spoke as if the excuse for Du Pont's existence was to help the global indigents. Her words, sounding more like a bovine moan, were not those of a confident, productive human being. Was that the moviemaker's portrayal of management in one of America's greatest corporations?

Next came a scene about Du Pont explosives. Instead of depicting how explosives have so benevolently lifted a torturous burden from man's shoulders, the scene disparaged human intelligence. A scientist was presented. He proceeded to express himself with garrulities such as "those cats think explosives are for war". Did that reflect the seriousness and intelligence of the Du Pont scientist? At that point, the moviemaker introduced his metaphysical view of the science: "Let the scientist miss and miss and begin again" was presented as the modus operandi of the scientist. The focus was on failure.

No acknowledgement or recognition was given to those competitive, value-producing scientists who think long-range and achieve great goals through carefully planned, exceedingly difficult, hard work. Instead, the audience was garroted with the fallacious image of a "crackpot" scientist mindlessly mixing together everything in sight and meeting failure after failure until by chance he stumbled onto a great discovery. Was this the moviemaker's metaphysical view of science? Was man's mind impotent and technical achievement a matter of chance or accident?



Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com