Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

After 2001: Our Neotech World



How did the moviemaker project those precious few individuals who choose to use their minds and exert supreme rational effort in order to discover, innovate, produce, and market products that have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for Du Pont? Their work was summed up in one sentence. "Things blew apart and everything". What was the meaning behind that seemingly frivolous remark? Was the moviemaker informing us that those great achievements required no special effort or intelligence? Did nylon evolve by a process of things blowing apart? Was that the moviemaker's view of man's accomplishments? Could anyone present such a dishonest, resentful, envious view of competence and achievement?

How were the end results of major technical achievements portrayed? Mylar® was selected as an example. Its value was promptly reduced to a toy butterfly. What about the value of knowledge? A Du Pont scientist spoke of his past. He referred to himself as a defrocked organic chemist and wondered why he ever obtained a Ph.D. degree. No explanation was given. The man was left appearing as a diffident fool for his past efforts. The man then explained that his genetic makeup made him what he was. Did not that mystical, predeterministic view negate the value of man's mind and his volitional discipline, effort, and free choice?

What about the value of man achieving his long-range goals? A sequence began with an obviously intelligent man making the rationally correct statement that "man has to satisfy the need to build". Indeed he does. Man's most fundamental need is to build (to produce). How did the moviemaker project that? The next scene showed a descending foot crushing a child's sand castle. Why? Is what man builds so tenuous and meaningless that his work can be crushed to nothing at someone's random whim?

What about the moviemaker's view of absolutes? His view was projected by a factory scene: A worker asserted that there was too much supervision. The next worker asserted that there was too little supervision. What purpose did that seemingly innocuous scene serve? Was it to show that one side is as valid as the other...that everything was a matter of opinion...that there was no right or wrong way...that whatever one felt was right...that there was no objective reality?

The scenes went on and on. Build up and tear down. A skyline was silhouetted with beautiful new factories. What significance was attached to those factories? Only one specific message was projected -- new factories caused problems of uprooting, relocation, and retraining. What about the products, jobs, profits, and competitive values generated by those factories? ...Silence.

What about the most important facet of man's life -- his productive work? Man and his work were sloughed off in ten seconds with the statement, "man must do his own thing while inside the Company". The scene shifted to man's activities outside the Company. In a lengthy persiflage of bizarre nonsense, we were bombarded with an incoherent collection of silent flickers blended with all the modern, mind-blowing psychedelic effects. Why? For what purpose? Was the moviemaker telling us that man's work was no more significant than a perfunctory statement that "he must do his own thing" and his other activities were no more worthy than meaningless pantomime and boring psychedelic effects? Could anyone possibly hold such a malevolent view of man and his life? Let us continue with the movie:

The desecration of values, man, and Du Pont continued at an accelerating pace. Du Pont employees at work were associated with pin-up girls, slogan-painted lab coats, and hippy buttons. The basic technique continued...show a value and then tear it down...show a man producing at his work and then knock him down with a slogan-painted lab coat or leave him leering at a girlie picture.

The moviemaker's technique reached the climax with the scene of the Executive Committee. Waiting in desperate hope for a glimpse of greatness, one found himself begging the movie to preserve values here...with the men who run that great, productive company. In the Executive Committee, one must find firm-faced men with clear, honest eyes...men whose voices were strong and confident...men who talked of important matters, such as production, profit, and values...men who talked of awesome business transactions, heroic discoveries, and fearless plans. But, alas, one was told apologetically that "someone had to run the store". Everyone was then gratuitously rammed with personalized close-ups of the men one wanted to keep at an impersonal distance in order to uphold them as ideals and sources of inspiration. Yes, everyone was assaulted with poster-size faces of the "warm personal man next door"[ 18 ].



Footnotes:


[ 18 ] The moviemaker was not completely successful here. A few faces did not yield. They reflected a dignity and self-esteem that even the moviemaker with all his modern techniques could not pull down.



Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

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