Sunday, 16 February 2014

The Stanley Kubrick Conspiracy - Part 8: The Clues Were Always There

In February 1993, the legendary alternative knowledge researcher Bill Cooper discussed “2001: A Space Odyssey” on his radio show. Cooper described the Monolith as a symbolic catalyst for the beginning of the programming / control of humanity and how the Monolith effectively imparts “forbidden knowledge” to humanity, dismantling “paradise” in its wake. As witnessed in the “Dawn of Man” sequence of the film, the “forbidden knowledge” leads to the death of one ape at the hands of another. Cooper believed that the ape, “Moonwatcher”, was a symbol of the first priest or initiate of the mystery school teachings – instrumental in guarding the secrets of the ages, astral theology, the study of the Sun, Moon and Stars, etc. Cooper also highlighted the six transformations that Bowman goes through in the finale of the film, the sixth level of attainment in the mystery school teachings, and the associated “666” paradigm of occult teachings.

There are also further subtle indications of 666 embedded in the film:
“It also appears that the "monoliths" in the movie appear for 666 seconds. The time between the first appearance and final disappearance of each of the four "monoliths'," the four times added together, is 666 seconds. Additionally, there are apparently 666 camera shots starting from "The Dawn of Man" (the first shot after the opening credits) to "The End" (the last shot of the closing credits.) The running time of the film in seconds, from the beginning of the "Overture" to the end of the "Exit Music" (total exhibition time), is allegedly equal to the number of moon orbits contained in 666 years (8903). Alternatively, the running time in seconds, from the beginning of the MGM lion logo to the fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases contained in 666 years (8237). Everything before and after the movie proper, that is, the "Overture," end credits, and "Exit Music" times, adds up to 666 seconds. For an "added bonus", the director Stanley Kubrick was reported to have died 666 days before the year 2001, on March 7, 1999.”

Other esoterically important numbers also appear prominently within the film. The masonic trinity or “3” is most obvious.
• The numbers 2001 (2 + 0 + 0 + 1) equal three.
• There are three words in the title after the 2001 – A, Space, Odyssey
• There are three eclipses in the film.
• There is an eclipse of three celestial bodies at the beginning of the film.
• The story takes place on or around three celestial bodies – the Earth, the Moon and Jupiter
• HAL consists of three letters –H,A,L
• There are three “conscious” entities on the ship – Dave, Frank and HAL
• There are three astronauts in hibernation
• The 'World Riddle' theme plays three times.
• It is also worth taking the time to count the sections, engines, pod bay doors, and the number of “triangular” (another “3”)  shaped “ribs” that form the spine of the Discovery spacecraft.

Jay Weidner has proposed that Kubrick created “2001: A Space Odyssey” as a “visual and alchemical initiation into the on-going transformation and evolutionary ascent of man to a so-called Star Child destiny.” The obvious analogies are the celestial alignments that precede each of the alchemical transmutations in the film. The second main allegory is the monolith or “black stones” that initiates these transmutations. Again this mirrors the alchemical lore about the black stone (known under numerous monikers – most notably “The Philosopher’s Stone”) causing the transmutation of the alchemist. The film itself (the dimensions of the movie screen) shares the same dimensions as the monolith, prompting some researchers to consider the act of viewing the film as part of a greater ritual or working.

“Kubrick completely reveals that he understands the Great Work. The monolith represents the Philosopher Stone, the Book of Nature and the Film that initiates. Stanley Kubrick has truly made the Book of Nature onto film. Using powdered silver nitrates, that are then glued onto a strip of plastic, and then projected onto the movie screens of our mind, Kubrick has proven himself to be the ultimate alchemist-artist of the late 20th century.” (Jay Weidner, “Alchemical Kubrick 2001: The Great Work on Film”, 1999)

It is rare that I consider a Hollywood insider to have any sizeable degree of integrity or adherence to positive values and principles. However, where it matters, I consider Stanley Kubrick to be an exception to the rule. Despite clearly being on the inside (and obviously a Hollywood “illusionist”), his films have told us more about the hidden global agenda than any other Hollywood endeavour – albeit largely in the form of allegory and metaphor. Was Kubrick’s decision to enact a form of disclosure prompted by guilt or some twisted sense of dark humour? Did he become a prisoner of an industry that he once loved, and decided to articulate the things he came to see and know? We may never know for sure.

It is possible that there have always been clues indicating the predicament that Kubrick became trapped in. His reclusive nature has been attributed to the controversy surrounding “A Clockwork Orange” and his disdain for the way in which society was generally heading (he cited the crime culture of New York City as an example on one occasion), yet Kubrick displayed many obsessive compulsive traits throughout his entire life. His often bizarre behaviour (he was known to wander around his estate brandishing a shotgun at all hours of the day and night) should also give cause to wonder. Was he fuelled by a degree of justified paranoia, rather than mere reclusive tendencies?

Stanley Kubrick gave very few filmed interviews. Shortly before his death, he was given the D.W. Griffiths Lifetime Achievement Award at The Director’s Guild of America Awards and surprised the audience by giving a short “filmed message” of appreciation.

"I think there's an intriguing irony in naming the lifetime achievement award after D.W. Griffiths, because his career was both an inspiration and a cautionary tale… Griffith was always ready to take great risks in his films and in his business affairs. He was always ready to fly to high and in the end, the wings of fortune proved for him (like those of Icarus) to be made of nothing more substantial than wax and feathers... and like Icarus, when he flew too close to the Sun, they melted. And the man whose fame exceeded the most illustrious filmmakers of today spent the last seventeen years of his life shunned by the film industry he had created. I've compared Griffiths' career to the Icarus myth, but (at the same time) I've never been certain whether the moral of the Icarus story should only be, as is generally accepted, don't try to fly to high... or whether it might also be thought of as 'forget the wax and feathers and do a better job on the wings!'"

This was a deeply significant observation for Kubrick to make in one of his final public appearances… and perhaps his most prophetic one. It may well be that (after years of metaphorically ‘playing with fire’) Kubrick ultimately got ‘burned’. His widow, Christianne, once said, "All Stanley's life he said, 'Never, ever go near power. Don't become friends with anyone who has real power. It's dangerous.'” It is ultimately tragic that his artistic genius became so badly infected by his association with the agenda. However, at the end, he never (unlike most others in the industry) tried to hide the truth from the public. For that, we are indebted to him.
The Truth Seeker's Guide.

Kubrick Related Articles:
Updates, 6th Annual British Exopolitics Expo & More Stanley Kubrick Apollo Fakery -
Foxes, Saturn, Kubrick, Doctor Who and The Singularity -
A Movie About Kubrick Faking the Moon Landing? -
Stanley Kubrick - Updates -

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -

2 comments: said...

Namaste brother, this has been a great journey into the past of an awesome man. Like you; I believe he did his best to teach us how to live with snakes.

I think he lamented his weakness in choosing to dine with reptiles. His work, especially toward the end, exposed his quandary. Great chapter to the book brother.

In Lak' ech, prosper with love... live with knowledge....

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

Many thanks Chris.
Glad you've enjoyed the articles.
The sadness of his story, as you say, is that he associated so closely with many of the "snakes".
Although it doesn't justify his affiliation with the agenda players, it is unfortunate that only by "playing with fire" did he come to realise the true nature and scope of these dark mechanisms.
Peace and all the best to you and yours my friend!