So, we’re finally on our way to the party. There is one more thing I wanted to comment on before leaving the Harford’s. And this ties in with the Intermission article about Religion.

As you see there’s a painting that could be interpreted to symbolize a “parting of the Red Sea”. (All the original paintings in the movie were done by Christiane Kubrick or Katharina Hobbs). Not only does the painting suggest a parting or divide, but the actors are also surrounded by the color red. And this is probably no accident as Kubrick was masterful with his use of color.

I do have quite an interesting take on the child with red hair as it relates to a Babalon Working involving Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley, L Ron Hubbard and a Moonchild. (Jack Parsons was an occultist and rocket engineer who founded JPL, and a pioneer in the advancement of rocket fuel.) However, I’m not quite sure where to fit it in yet. And it may only appeal to hardcore occultists. So, I’ll save it for later.

Anyways, you might be wondering why would Kubrick be bringing up Moses? The short of it is, as mentioned previously, we have a character named “daddy” in our drama. Or as rephrased in Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark, “It’s as if the pharaohs had returned.” So, what he might be saying is: We’re going to need a miracle along the lines of the Red Sea parting in order to get out of this mess.

You might be wondering again, “What the *!@#, Jason? You can’t use images from Indiana Jones when analyzing Eyes Wide Shut.” Ah, but I can. Because I’ve already established the connection between Spielberg and Kubrick when discussing A.I. Artificial Intelligence in Part 5.

I’ve also speculated while there are only 2 official Kubrick releases since The Shining in 1980 (Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut), there may be “unofficial” releases with him as a ghost director of sorts.

Now, I have no problem being reckless with my own life at times. So, while I feel there are many coincidences between the works of Kubrick, Spielberg and others, I’m going to do my best to share findings here while also treading carefully so as not to put anyone else in the line of fire.

It does seem a little strange there’s no shortage of conspiracy theories surrounding Kubrick, but not many at all attributed to Spielberg. We know they were good friends with Spielberg having completed A.I for Kubrick. And usually good friends share information and stories. So, if there were any information in Kubrick’s work, it’s very reasonable there might be in Spielberg’s as well.

The Shining (1980), is probably the Kubrick film which generates the most conspiracies. And here’s some interesting similarities from Spielberg’s 1981 film Raiders of the Lost Ark for your perusal:

There’s also a fascinating analysis of Eyes Wide Shut over on the ATS forums I feel complements this work, and one of the things I learned is Bill Harford’s last name is a combination of Harrison Ford. The author also points out the Sonata Piano Bar scene is the only time Kubrick appears on camera in his films. So, it may be more than coincidence we also see a character who resembles Indiana Jones.

Another thing I find interesting is, Kubrick never dealt with aliens explicitly in any of his films. Yet, Spielberg has explored the topic throughout his career: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, War of the Worlds, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, and the last Indiana Jones features both aliens and crystal skulls (and refrigerators).

So, it makes you wonder. If Kubrick was contracted by intelligence agencies for the Apollo films, there would of course be a National Security Oath preventing discussion of the topic (most likely even in fictionalized form). So, one possibility is he offloaded whatever information he had for others to use.

There are no doubt other possibilities. Which we may get into later. But I’m not the only one thinking along these lines. As you have this interview with Sean Stone, director Oliver Stone’s son, saying, “Why is Spielberg making movies about aliens so much?” Another quote: “Basically, the Eyes Wide Shut sex parties are real. And they do have crystal skulls they use like in the Indiana Jones films.”

Lastly, before getting to the party. I found this video describing the 9/11 symbolism in Back to the Future to be well worth the watch. There are even quite a few references I feel he missed (which is what I’m hoping people will point out in this study). Some possible coded imagery of Indiana Jones in Back to the Future and Forrest Gump, another Zemekis film below:

All right. We’ve finally arrived. And there’s a couple interesting things to note right off the bat. The first being, on the exterior establishing shot during the superimposed edit, we have 2 actors appearing on screen along with 2 names in the credits. Possibly meant to imply, while we only see 1 building in frame, he’s really discussing 2.

The next obvious thing is the lighting during this entire sequence. Without something to compare it to, like a previous frame we looked at when discussing secret societies operating from the shadows, or a scene from Barry Lyndon shot by candlelight, it actually may not be that obvious. But the overall impression is very “hot” in this sequence, or like buildings “on fire”.

There’s also a highly interesting and relevant story to the camera lens used for the candlelight scenes in Barry Lyndon. The lens was specially made for NASA’s Apollo program to capture the far side of the Moon (where it’s really dark).

And it makes you wonder. *When* did Kubrick actually acquire it? We know *who* he got it from. Is it possible he was in possession of it well before filming of Barry Lyndon in 1975 as part of classified work for the government?

Many people have commented on the very large double star symbolism seen everywhere at the party. I mentioned all the way back in Part 1, Nicole Kidman was a “towering beauty” to symbolize buildings or towers. On its own that could be a bit of a reach. But if we include tall monuments, such as the Statue of Liberty, the star symbolism we see Kidman dancing in front of could be interpreted here as a “crown”.

She even focuses her attention in the direction of the star where the wardrobe of another actress seems to reinforce this idea with green draped clothing reminiscent of the statue’s Roman Stola. One of the models we see Cruise with could also double as both a Twin Tower and Statue of Liberty with her attire/sandals. Lastly, there’s a Statue of Liberty or America who’s “sick” in the bathroom scene. (The large ring could even be imagined as a “torch”).

The superimposed images for the above screenshots are also revealing. I won’t comment extensively other than there appears to be some finger pointing (possibly in reference to the 2 towers), Dracula fangs in the last frame, and lots of “red” in the background of the toy store similar to the Red Sea symbolism earlier. (This time possibly indicating Russia’s influence on our last election with the advertisement near the dolls, or “puppets”, resembling a political poster.)

Backing up for a second as we follow Cruise and Kidman into the party. We continue to see intense lighting. (And another statue behind Kidman.) There’s also more than a few symbols here tying into the last post on Religion. Of course, there’s a Christmas tree and a “Stairway to Heaven”.

As the lyrics of that song go, “…and she’s buying a stairway to heaven”, these people really do believe they can buy anything they desire. If you remember back to our Dave Chappelle discussion, one of the things Oprah allegedly said to him during his persecution by the black power brokers was, “We have more money than God”.

And it’s funny if you go back and watch his interview on her show. (Which was a thinly veiled 40-minute attempt to get an “apology” for being socially irresponsible with a second chance at keeping his show as ransom).

You can see why he never got this second chance if you skip to the end. Because the subtext of the conversation is, instead of bowing to Oprah’s “God money” – he takes a jab at her instead. Wondering why she’s hoarding all these resources and doesn’t put them back into the community or charities if she’s going to take the high road of self-righteous “social responsibility” warrior?

I’ve talked before about the jester archetype normally being the only one who can criticize the “king” (or “queen”) and get away with keeping their head. However, this is a perfect example of what I think Kubrick was alluding to with needing a miracle similar to a “Red Sea Parting” in order to dethrone the power crazed pharaohs currently running the world.

And it’s possible we may have already had the beginnings of our Red Sea miracle, with the Roswell crash. It is interesting when you hear Paul the Apostle talk about “clouds” and the “sea” (which is where UFOs and USO’s are reported) in this passage about Moses and the Red Sea in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:

“For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”

Anyways, back to the two frames above. This was also the character we speculated was “daddy”. And the body language of the group could be interpreted as a “prayer circle”. I’m not going to pass judgment on who or what they might be worshiping. But, if these are indeed the people responsible for 9/11, the symbolism of their behavior indicates a very poor understanding of the world. The other frame may hint at this ignorance being prevalent for a while as I feel there could be Titanic references.

One of the most famous stories surrounding the Titanic is of the 8-member band who continued to play in an effort to keep passengers calm and upbeat while the ship was sinking. The use of music credits to draw attention to the sounds of emergency sirens was noted earlier, and again here we see references to audio.

When compared to actual music of the early 1900’s, there is an eerie similarity to what the band is playing in Eyes Wide Shut.  A violin used by the Titanic’s bandleader was also sold at auction just a few years ago for $1.7 million.

Now, we could leave it there with parallels between 2 of the biggest disasters in recent history. However, as we’ve seen analyzing Kubrick’s symbolism of space and aliens, he seems to not only be bringing topics up, but also trying to give us the real story.

So, if 9/11 was a planned event, is he trying to tell us the sinking of the Titanic was as well? The owner of the Titanic, J.P. Morgan, was mentioned briefly in Part 4 speculating about Rothschild, banking and the number 6.

Two of the more popular alternative theories of the Titanic involve insurance fraud with a near-identical sister-ship the Olympic, and J.P. Morgan wanting to eliminate several prominent bankers opposed to the creation of a central bank (John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Isidor Straus).

This could easily be a case where things aren’t mutually exclusive either, as they usually never are. Because if the ship was intentionally sunk, then insurance fraud has been committed even if it didn’t involve a separate vessel.

The connections between Rothschild, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan could be researched and written about for a lifetime (and people have). However, I will do my best to give details when the obvious symbolism appears as with the Pizzagate/Pedogate material.

A good place to start would be the explicit references in the dialogue to Rockefeller and the House of Windsor. Similar to the explicit mention of the numbers 911.

So, Rothschild isn’t specifically referred to by name like Rockefeller is, and I believe this is no accident. We just brought up JP Morgan, and one of the leading theories on him is he was an agent of Rothschild operating in America. As many researchers have noted, Rothschild doesn’t like their name connected to anything. And probably why we see Kubrick deftly using symbolism referring to them, but not actually naming them.

Again, I would refer you to the Sean Stone interview, where he talks about the idea of British imperialism never stopping, only continuing through “informal means”.  So, now we have a motivation for why JP Morgan might be a Rothschild agent – the subjugation of America to the British Empire through informal means – a central bank.

Well, you say, what about Rockefeller? How and why is he able to operate as Rothschild does but, “in plain sight”? And I think this is answered in the movie, There Will Be Blood, where we have a character named “Plainview”.

When a bank can issue a piece of paper worth millions that fits in your pocket – it’s very easy to hide wealth (or write someone else’s name on it like Rothschild/Morgan). On the other hand, when your wealth is pumped out of the ground into huge barrels needing extensive transportation infrastructure – people are probably going to notice and want to know who and what’s going on.

So, at some point these “titans” need to start working together or risk destroying each other. And why you have Rockefeller quoted as saying, “Competition is a sin”. This also explains the US/UK collaboration in the space program we talked about. And of course, getting back to Eyes Wide Shut, working together for a “N-U-A-L-A”. Which is what New World Order (N.W.O.) would sound like if you slurred the words together.

Seeing as how Rothschild is the “old money” of the two, I would guess he’s the “daddy” that keeps getting referred to. Although, Rockefeller may not be far behind. And this may be another use of the double star, or star within a star symbol. (Note we can’t see either of their faces).

Rothschild would also explain the abundant Nazi symbolism we’ve seen. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) was a German Jewish banker and founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty. With the name Rothschild derived from the German zum rothen Schild meaning “with the red sign”.

Getting back to 9/11 and the Titanic. What I find curious is, the Captain of the Titanic, E.J. Smith, always takes a lot of the blame in historical accounts with accusations of:

“Failing to heed ice warnings, not slowing his ship when ice was reported directly in his path and allowing lifeboats to leave the sinking ship partially filled.”

Yet, when it comes to 9/11, the people responsible for “oversight” aren’t accountable for some reason. I wonder if it has to do with that pesky N.W.O. again?

Speaking of “patsies” and Captain E.J. Smith of the Titanic. While I haven’t given Kubrick’s Barry London as much study as his other movies (and I don’t think I’m alone in this), one of the themes there appears to be the JFK assassination. With an opening scene taking place on a “grassy knoll” and dialogue about loading of firearms. Along with a carriage that could be interpreted as the infamous SS-X-100 convertible Lincoln.

Another movie I’ve been wanting to go back and take a closer look at is Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was also implicit symbolism there concerning Oswald, JFK, and patsies.

Anyways, in previous articles we discussed actors who resembled well-known politicians such as Hilary and Bill Clinton, and the Podesta brothers. I think we can extend that analogy further, and speculate the two band members we see playing music while the ship goes down (or towers destroyed), are Bush Sr. and Jr.

Most people are probably aware the elder Bush served as CIA director for a time. Which could be one of the reasons the imagery suggests information on people/things in front of him. While possibly a stretch, the next two frames could be related to W’s notorious bad study habits and C grades at Yale, and a prophetic glimpse into his future administration with Cheney and Colin Powell lookalikes in his “band”.

I know I mentioned earlier the possibility of presidencies being lined up. I wasn’t trying to insinuate there aren’t different political factions in play. Only that at the highest level they both answer to the same master or “daddy”.

A little off topic from 9/11, but still dealing with politics and interpreting subtext again. This is an interesting video (you can ignore the reptilian clickbait title if you want) where you have Clinton and Bush discussing online fundraising. Which was an enormous part of Obama’s success in 2008 and 2012.

It should be obvious by now these guys could care less about disaster relief. And many times are responsible for them. Their only concern is stuffing their pockets with your dollars.

So, I think what you have with Bill saying, “I’d just be in the way” is a warning to Bush that whatever Republican candidate gets trotted out is going to get steamrolled by Democratic fundraising on the internet. So, just throw out a sacrificial lamb like McCain, and we can both save money on campaigns this time around.

People can do whatever they want though, and keep stuffing the pockets of these guys. However, there is another option. Which is to minimize problems. I can only speak for myself, but after nearly a year of slogging through films trying to decode hidden information, the problem of secrecy is at the top of my list.

If it wasn’t such a major problem, I think more people would probably know about this “daddy” both political parties answer to. And if secrecy is the problem, then the solution to focus on would be transparency. It takes a little while for change obviously, but I’m not sure what people were expecting with the first President in 40 years to not release tax returns.

(Disclaimer – I’ve never voted and have no political affiliation. As you might have guessed from my talent for angering nearly everyone. I just like the truth and let my unconscious guide me to it.)

Mini-rant out of the way. We’ve covered a lot. So, to recap before moving on, this image summarizes almost everything brought up so far.

This is a still from the party when Dr. Bill gets called away. It occurs 13:00 minutes in suggesting this guy is bad news. Kubrick’s got him in the cross-hairs though, exposing what he can (also possibly another JFK reference). The bathtub could represent a ship or the Titanic. The structure on top of it the Twin Towers. Then the painting in the background features the sex trade and mouths sealed with sexual blackmail, and the rounded belly of the woman meant to imply his obsession with the Moon.

On superimposed edit, I think Kubrick tries to convey the details of the “black ops” with black triangles and materialization/dematerialization. However, it’s just way too much to get into here. When the later sequence is viewed on its own you can see the “crazy straw” on the table when Cruise appears to “phase out”. And I think that symbol is all that needs to be said. (Not to mention the implication of praying to any or all religious idols in the painting beforehand).

Until that discussion comes up though, The Philadelphia Experiment seen featured in Spielberg’s Close Encounters is worth looking into. Project Rainbow was another name for The Philadelphia Experiment, and we started trying to decode the “Under the Rainbow” symbolism in Part 5.

Montauk Project is also related to this. The movie Contact written by Carl Sagan (who died mysteriously young like Kubrick) and directed by Robert Zemekis, applies as well. Possibly more references to dematerializing objects/chairs in Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining:

One of the reasons I feel that sequence where Cruise appears to “phase out” and “teleport” deals with black projects is the symbolism of the lighting. Similar to how we noted the lighting at the party was intensely hot or burning.

What could be references to Tesla coils in Raiders and Close Encounters (the crazy straw above also fits with this symbolism):

I’m backlogged on Lost at the moment, but according to Wikipedia the experiments of the character Daniel Faraday could be referencing Montauk. There’s also a connection with “smoke monsters” between Lost and Spielberg’s Close Encounters. And 6 repeating numbers on computer screens. You may find Spielberg’s DreamWorks logo interesting as well.

Getting back to 9/11 though. This scene describing the destination of these black ops as “where the (project) rainbow ends” I feel can double as an exterior street level view of New York. Where you have twin towers of lighting in the background with gray asphalt carpeting and yellow painted lines commonly found on roadways.

You even have Cruise swaying back and forth as an object does before it topples over. The superimposed images reveal a “missing person” or what happens during a teleportation along with possibly the shock of what he’s actually seen at the end of the rainbow. (A reminder again these symbols are working on multiple levels so of course the interpretation of heartbreak from 9/11 and Kubrick’s own personal circumstances apply as well).

Now, I want to start wrapping this article up with a few more loose images, and then do a more detailed analysis around the 9:11 time stamp similar to how we looked at the 42-minute mark of the Breaking Bad “I.F.T.” episode in Part 5. I mentioned earlier the jealousy scene takes up 14 minutes of screen time, and this initial party sequence tops that at over 17 minutes in length.

I’m having trouble tracking down the source I read where it said the filming of this party took almost 6 months alone. However, the overall production set a Guinness World Record for the longest continual film shoot at 15 months.

That’s just filming. Kubrick is quoted as saying editing is the only original and unique art form in film. Spielberg also talks about Kubrick’s love of editing in this interview for the Blu-Ray extras. (Notice how he also mentions Stargate, which features teleportation, several times unprovoked.) Really, we don’t even need to be told about Kubrick’s editing as we can see for ourselves in the superimposed images.

Anyways, it should go without saying when a genius takes that much care to craft a product, some important details will necessarily have to be left out of a few thousand-word synopsis.

Speaking of loose images, it’s interesting we see a bowl of “loose change” featured at the beginning of Eyes Wide Shut. The 2005 documentary film Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup was considered by Vanity Fair to be “the first internet blockbuster”.

It’s hard to get around conspiracies when talking about a conspiracy movie, but there are a few that should be noted here. According to Wikipedia:

“In 2007 Media entrepreneur Mark Cuban was going to distribute Loose Change, and Charlie Sheen was going to narrate. However, this did not happen; Fox News political talk show host Bill O’Reilly interviewed Cuban on his radio show and said Sheen’s career would be over if he narrated it.”

Shortly later in 2008 is when insider trading charges were brought against Cuban which he was eventually cleared of.

So, it seems we have similarities again with Dave Chappelle and another “blockbuster” show that inexplicably disappeared. At the risk of doing what Chappelle mentions in this Oprah interview of, “Maybe connecting dots that shouldn’t be connected”. It appears people are not being silenced because of social irresponsibility, but daring to exercise free speech and criticizing the “pharaohs”.

Not to be overly dramatic, but some people may be getting worried I’m painting a target on my back to be next in line for “thought reform”. So, I’ll just leave this poem here by Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This painting was mentioned as having Moon symbolism. Like the refrigerators we looked at I believe there is more there. I may do a separate section at the end examining some of these paintings more in depth. One of the more apparent things is the difference in the lines of her legs. This may have to do with another major sticking point among Apollo conspiracy theorists and diverging/converging shadows.

The double star symbol always gets a lot of attention at the party, but the 2 candles are interesting as well, since they show up again later at “Sharky’s”. 2 candles representing 2 towers is the obvious symbolism. However, more subtlely this could be another reference to ocean liners and aquatic animals, with the double star serving as a porthole on a ship.

Yes, I realize I may be stretching the imagination a bit in this instance. There are a couple things to consider though. Kubrick was a student (and master) of the subliminal. The documentary film Room 237 discusses the classic 1970’s book Subliminal Seduction in association with Kubrick and The Shining.

So, when taking into account the level of resources at the disposal of someone able to perpetrate hoaxes and false flags the magnitude of 9/11, Titanic sinking’s, and Moon landings, you can see how he wouldn’t be able to come out directly and say, “Look Out”.

Which is why you’re also going to have to give me a little leeway when interpreting the symbolism surrounding the 9:11 time frame we’re about to get into.

Along these lines of subliminal messages and warnings. We discussed the idea that part of Kubrick’s attempt to prevent 9/11 was through the delivery of “packages” to countries outside the United States. He may also have been delivering packages inside the country, to other filmmakers, as another part of that plan.

Orchestrating a “barrage” of subliminal images of twin tower disasters in the years preceding it. As you see in this collage taken from the 9:11 time stamps of several pre-2001 movies:

Armageddon (1998), The World Is Not Enough (1999), Conspiracy Theory (1997), Gladiator (2000), 28 Days Later… (2002), Cop Land (1997), eXistenZ (1999), Mulholland Dr. (2001), Fight Club (1999), U Turn (1997), Memento (2000), From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

The last frame may hint at the intelligence of these “leaders”. False flags or WMD’s in faraway countries like Vietnam or Iraq, and the sinking of a ship out at sea are “low profile”. But I guess when you get away with murdering a president in broad daylight you get a little nervy.

Anyway, these other directors may also have just been on the same intuitive/psychic level as Kubrick and saw it coming as he did. Although, I believe Kubrick knew about 9/11 from as far back as The Shining (1980) portrayed in the following frames (Along with the refrigerator discussed in Part 4).

If you watched the Back to the Future predicts 9/11 video linked above, it sure seems those creators were channeling something as early as 1985.

So, the screen below is from right before the 9:11 time stamp in Eyes Wide Shut. 9:09 to be exact.

There’s the 2 candles in the distance again. They could be the ones from earlier just from a different angle. The motif of 2 does repeat in various ways throughout the film like with the packages, plants, and rainbows. Which I’ll probably highlight a bit down the road.

The Statue of Liberty symbolism was already brought up with the green dress and sandals. However, for the sequence that’s about to take place I believe the main symbolism is the Twin Towers.

Another interesting thing to note is we’re seeing this from a distance. We do get a closer view of the same scene a little later which could be Kubrick’s way of saying – this is what the public sees, but I’m going to give you a “closer look” or “insider’s view”. Which is why that scene features the dialogue about a New World Order, Rockefeller and Rothschild/Windsor.

The following images are all most people see though. The cover up or cover story. Intentional obfuscation or “spin”. Which is probably why we also see so much symbolism of dancing in circles and cameras moving in circles.

While this might just seem like a big blurry mess, I do feel there are details being communicated. Obviously, we’ve gone over the first image at the 9:11 time stamp when used as a title card in Part 1 of this series.

When talking recently with people about 9/11, I was surprised several of them had forgotten or weren’t aware the Pentagon was also a target, as well as World Trade Center Building #7 coming down in the attacks along with the Twin Towers.

And that’s why I feel we see the obfuscation at the specific time stamps we do. 9:15 symbolizing the Pentagon and 9:17 for WTC #7. You’ll notice the intervening frames are clear between 9:11 and 9:15 when watching the full sequence.

The features of the actors doing the obfuscating may also be relevant here. As you see a gentleman that could fit the profile of a military man in the 9:15 or Pentagon frame, and another that could pass as a banker in the 7 frame. The two giant faces in the 9:11 screen I feel are intentional as well.

Earlier, I mentioned how the above scene could be interpreted as an exterior street level view of New York with Twin Towers of lighting and a carpet resembling asphalt roads with painted yellow lines. And if we look at the overall lighting or “atmosphere” of what’s in the air, it does appear to be very “smoky”, similar to the debris filling the air at ground zero following the attacks. (Comparison of an “interior” shot from this walk before coming “outside”.)

Of course, we’re going to need a suspect or “patsy” lined up for this false flag before the attacks take place. Which is why I think we (and Alice) are introduced to the “dark foreigner” early on. The camera movement may be revealing here as well, similar to the “spin” or circles mentioned previously. In this instance though, we’re only taken on a semi-circular path – or “halfway across the world” symbolism.

What we see here is also a very tall gentleman. One of the defining characteristics of Osama bin Laden was his well above average height, with many even suspecting he suffered from Marfan syndrome. An extremely tall, dark foreigner who lives halfway across the world appears to be the message.

Lastly, people are going to look to their leader for a response. We already met a Bush lookalike, but the remainder of that interaction is also telling if you remember the infamous “non-response”. Where he continued to sit in a classroom after being informed America was at “war”. Which is why I think we see Bush featured “in the dark” with the lighting in this scene, and the bright lights are behind Cruise.

Well, I think that about covers it. Or the major points at least. As mentioned, 6 months was spent filming this sequence so there is no doubt much, much more there.

There is one final image I wanted to close on. Along with a montage from Breaking Bad that may help explain for people who went on a cigarette break or skipped the Intermission article talking about the creation of “fanatics”.

These screenshots of Kidman are taken directly after the symbolically portrayed 9/11 attacks. As you can see she looks perfectly normal in the first, but in the second appears to be possessed by a demon. And if you notice also her position has been “reversed” from the right to left side.

Many people describe this as “good” and “evil”. Or in the occult as “right hand path (RHP)” vs “left hand path (LHP)”. Science even has their own terminology as shown below with Walter White using chemistry lingo of “chirality”:

What I would point out though, since this is a Stanley Kubrick analysis, is a somewhat legendary story of a middle of the night telephone conversation he had with Stephen King concerning God while working to adapt The Shining.

Here is how Wikipedia recounts it:

Stephen King recalled Kubrick calling him late at night while he was filming The Shining and Kubrick asked him, “Do you believe in God?” King said that he had answered in the affirmative, but has had three different versions of what happened next. One time, he said that Kubrick simply hung up on him. On other occasions, he claimed Kubrick said, “I knew it”, and then hung up on him. On yet another occasion, King claimed that Kubrick said, before hanging up, “No, I don’t think there is a God.” In more recent interviews, King has had yet another version of the “God” story, in which Kubrick calls King and asks him if he thinks ghost stories are optimistic because they all suggest there is life after death. King replies, “What about hell?” There is a pause and Kubrick says, “I do not believe in hell.”

This last part about not believing in hell is what I’d like to focus on, since this is something I’ve brought up in past articles and videos. I really do think it is this simple. If you believe in demons – you will have demons in your life. And like Kubrick says, if you believe in hell – you will have a hell.

Not to get all biblical, but I think the best we can do is look at the symbolism. The behavior.

“Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16)

So, when people’s symbolic behavior (or fruits) bring about 9/11’s and the sinking of Titanic’s, I don’t think it’s a matter of good vs evil, angels and demons, or heaven and hell.

It’s more, is this a problem? And if it is, what solution do I want to focus on instead?

I would also remark, the absence of something is not a solution. It’s impossible to focus on nothing. (Don’t take my word for it. Science says Absolute Zero cannot be achieved).

So, as an example. AA we’ve discussed likes to focus on sobriety or “not drinking”. This is really still focusing on drinking though. Similar to the suggestion of “don’t think of pink elephants”.

Most parents are well aware of this phenomenon, and choose to ignore tantrums by redirecting to a solution they prefer. You can’t say, “stop throwing a tantrum”, because nothing has been offered in place of it. So, the focus is still the tantrum.

The perpetrators of these disasters covered here are masters of this art of misdirection. Anytime a person proposes an alternative to the official story, the redirection is towards that persons “unstable” mental state. They must be crazy because look here. The focus is no longer on finding truth, but the spectacle of what outrageous thing this madman will do next.

They’re not mutually exclusive either. It’s entirely possible to be a “madman” speaking the truth. (I use quotes because some people don’t believe in crazy, just as they don’t believe in demons or hell).

Also, for the people who may say, but you’ve contradicted yourself Jason. Earlier you said transparency was a solution for secrecy in politics. Isn’t transparency also “the absence of something”?

Well, I was hoping the skipped step was obvious in that “discussion” was the transparency I was implying.  And this also satisfies the means = the end formula. If you want everyone involved at the end, they need to be consulted with all along. Instead of say one person being able to declare war whenever they like.

Anyways, that’s all I got. Hopefully, others will take a look and give feedback. Because I need a break or my work may start to resemble Jack’s in The Shining: