- Stanley Kubrick was a super-genius and the greatest cinematic artist of the 20th
- Stanley Kubrick was coerced to work for the government and faked the Moon landings that were shown to the public.
- Stanley Kubrick placed hints of what he had secretly done in a number of his films.
- Stanley Kubrick was murdered for what he did and what he knew.
And the final point is this brilliant genius…was wrong! He was wrong not only for making a federal ‘deal with the Devil’ and being in league with the most evil men on Earth, the Illuminati…
…But for his primal philosophy that he displayed for everyone to view in the famous primate scenes of the film ‘2001.’ Kubrick was an evolutionist, a Darwinist, and therefore (as we have discovered in time) was very, very wrong. His problem was he ‘rubbed elbows’ too much with Arthur C. Clarke. For all the true and pure genius that Stanley was, he believed in Evolution as a counter to religion; so many “intellectuals” of the time did, 50 years ago.
Real scientists have proved 200-year old Darwinism as a completely unviable, untenable principle. Darwinism does not work in a modern age that is slightly more enlightened. Facts and mysteries from ancient ‘giants’ to ancient anomalies and “impossible” structures in remote places prove that early humans on Earth were super knowledgeable. But almost overnight, they lost this prehistoric technology (Atlantis).
Kubrick did not realize this and the master filmmaker of ‘2001,’ with the skill of Rembrandt, was basically showing us ‘Columbus’ ships falling off the edge of a flat Earth’ or an obsolete, scientific view. I’m sure the “intellectuals” in the 1960s and earlier accepted such a traditional viewpoint. But when real and secret ‘occult’ or hidden information finally reveals itself, it completely blows apart conventional thinking. For all the artistic glory and brilliance of ‘A Space Odyssey,’ it showed our primal past or our human beginnings from the POV of utter ignorance and traditional misinformation.
There is a huge problem with this old-fashioned “intellectualism.” We have the problem of the mighty and very old pyramids and impossible structures that Von Daniken (wrongly) claims were built by aliens. In fact, ‘2001’ was really a film that portrayed Von Danikenism: first, magically, primates just appear on Earth and then more magic appears in the form of the alien Monolith. Suddenly, our stupid human ancestors instantly advance and, of course, the very first invention HAD to be a weapon! This is BULLSHIT, cinematically presented to us in a wonderful and incredibly visual way.
You see, how could our prehistoric ancestors have built the amazing pyramids and lifted the enormous weights all over the Earth (grid) when we cannot come close to such technical feats today? Something is very wrong with history to think that, overnight, extremely primitive cave-people became sophisticated enough to create the megalithic stonework. What educators had to do was make the pyramids and Andean fortresses fairly recent productions (untrue) because they do not fit the traditional or progressive scenario of Evolution, at all. And that doesn’t work since it’s like the future in the past.
…Hence, the creation of magical or technological ALIENS in ‘2001,’ that we never see, who conveniently advance the barbaric Earthly primates…because something had to in order to construct the stone wonders of the ancient world.
Hey, Stanley and Arthur…did you ever imagine that Charles Darwin ain’t what he’s cracked up to be and was 100% wrong? Shame on you ‘geniuses.’ Could it possibly be, as we are discovering, that first humans were incredibly knowledgeable and technically sophisticated? We did not need help from invisible aliens or anything else.
Stanley Kubrick was a dark individual and this can be gleaned from his quotes. His quotes may also reveal this enticement to the Dark Side or to the Rothschild’s world and others who rule the planet. Stanley and AC Clarke were atheists and like many non-spiritual people, their whole outlook or philosophy on humans and the universe is very dark.
Let’s overanalyze Kubrick’s quotes:
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent…we must supply our own light.”
“The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning.”
“If you’re an idealist, I pity you as I would the village idiot.”
He is here saying there’s no God, no purpose, no meaning to life, no ‘cosmic consciousness’ or Super Intelligence or Great Order in the Universe…there is only purposeless, meaninglessness and chaos…and if you believe in any silly ideal, then you’re a foolish dreamer and an idiot.
“What do you take me for…a 14-karat sucker?”
Was the above quote a clue that Stanley thought that everyone would take the deal he was offered: fame and fortune and the freedom to make any film with money being no object?
“It’s crazy how you can get yourself in a mess sometimes and not even be able to think about it with any sense and yet not be able to think about anything else.”
“Anytime you take a chance, you better be sure the rewards are worth the risk because they can put you away just as fast for a ten dollar heist as they can for a million dollar job.”
In the above quotes, it seems, Stanley might be agonizing about his choice to help the feds or NWO or Illuminati. The last line is from his early film, ‘The Killing’ (1956).
“Great nations have always acted like gangsters and small nations like prostitutes.”
“Never, ever go near power. Don’t become friends with anyone who has real power. It’s dangerous.”
Kubrick appears to know what he is talking about by being in direct contact with the most powerful people, which deal in a very scary and secretive world of life and death. Stanley may have been courted by the most evil men on Earth for a dark agenda.
“When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.”
Did they not give him a choice?
“There are few things more fundamentally encouraging and stimulating than seeing someone else die.”
Was the above quote a revealing look into what Stanley Kubrick was made to witness behind the public scenes in secret ceremonies? Did he get a thrill from seeing ‘them’ put a helpless person or a willing sacrifice to death? Was this how ‘They’ display their ritualistic illusion of power? I guess it was all right as long as it was someone else and not yourself? Not everyone gets a thrill from witnessing the death of another person.
I encourage everyone: delve into the mystery of Stanley Kubrick more and to view his later films in a completely different way than we did when originally seen. Read the great work and hear interviews of Jay Weidner on Kubrick. Delve into his MURDER and why he was murdered before he completed ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ and ‘A.I.’ THEY diverted us and made the controversy in EWS about the virtual censorship in the sex scenes when the real controversy was revealing the practices of the ruling Secret Society.
Copyright 2015 TS Caladan
PS: I sent article to Jay Weidner (Kubrick expert) and he just wrote back:
“I like it. He was a torn man that is for sure. Arthur had way too much influence on him. SK was young and naive. BTW some people say…he faked his death and then faked 911.”