Viddy Well, My Brothers - A short piece about Clockwork Ultra

Peeling an MK- Orange

   Let me state now that I believe that the primary theme of Clockwork Orange is mind control.

   Allow me to quote from an interview with Kubrick regarding CO:

"The central idea of the film has to do with the question of free-will. Do we lose our humanity if we are deprived of the choice between good and evil? Do we become, as the title suggests, A Clockwork Orange? Recent experiments in conditioning and mind control on volunteer prisoners in America have taken this question out of the realm of science-fiction." 




   The similarities with MKULTRA (The documented CIA excursion into mind control) are ramapant.
The CIA pushed forward with MKULTRA with the idea that they were trying to keep up with Soviet and Chinese research demonstrated on POWs in the Korean War.


   Now, while I was researching the Clockwork Orange and Manson connections,

Michel Ciment: In your films the State is worse than the criminals but the scientists are worse than the State.

Kubrick: I wouldn't put it that way. Modern science seems to be very dangerous because it has given us the power to destroy ourselves before we know how to handle it. On the other hand, it is foolish to blame science for its discoveries, and in any case, we cannot control science. Who would do it, anyway? Politicians are certainly not qualified to make the necessary technical decisions. Prior to the first atomic bomb tests at Los Alamos, a small group of physicists working on the project argued against the test because they thought there was a possibility that the detonation of the bomb might cause a chain reaction which would destroy the entire planet. But the majority of the physicists disagreed with them and recommended that the test be carried out. The decision to ignore this dire warning and proceed with the test was made by political and military minds who could certainly not understand the physics involved in either side of the argument. One would have thought that if even a minority of the physicians thought the test might destroy the Earth no sane men would decide to carry it out. The fact that the Earth is still here doesn't alter the mind-boggling decision which was made at that time.

 

It's just my interpretation but it's just seems that Kubrick says one thing but means another. 'No sane man'? Was it the politicians that pushed to have the Hadron Collider move forward? I mean, after all, "...it is foolish to blame science for its discoveries..."

Then there's this piece that really snapped my head. Responding to a question about the level of violence in the film, Kubrick says:

"It is absolutely essential that Alex is seen to be guilty of a terrible violence against society, so that when he is eventually transformed by the State into a harmless zombie you can reach a meaningful conclusion about the relative rights and wrongs. If we did not see Alex first as a brutal and merciless thug it would be too easy to agree that the State is involved in a worse evil in depriving him of his freedom to choose between good and evil. It must be clear that it is wrong to turn even unforgivably vicious criminals into vegetables, otherwise the story would fall into the same logical trap as did the old, anti-lynching Hollywood westerns which always nullified their theme by lynching an innocent person. Of course no one will disagree that you shouldn't lynch an innocent person -- but will they agree that it's just as bad to lynch a guilty person, perhaps even someone guilty of a horrible crime? And so it is with conditioning Alex."

I feel like I'm hearing two very different things here. One is, that it was necessary to show the horrible things Alex does, in order to balance what the state does to him. If your goal is to show, "It must be clear that it is wrong to turn even unforgivably vicious criminals into vegetables..." then why do you need to make it difficult to see the State is '...involved in a worse evil...?" Am I missing something?

I also feel that Kubrick's answer is a powerful statement against mind control and the manipulation of public opinion, no matter what the motivation behind it. In the beginning of the interview with Ciment, he states,

 Is this what Kubrick referred to as a decision made by politicians? 

The shadow that MKULTRA casts is larger than many realize. 

So my point is, was Kubrick speaking from the viewpoint of a guilty conscience? Or as a possible victim or witness to other victims?

For the Moon is hollow, and I have touched the sky...

This will put the 'wild' into 'wild speculation' for this blog. Please suspend your disbelief for a few moments.

   What if JFK was ultimately assassinated because of the Apollo program? If anyone read the King Kill post, you are vaguely familiar with the work of James Shelby Downard and his theory of the Grand Masonic Conspiracy.
   Just to recap some salient points for this blog:

   The actual assassination was carried out by a cabal, including but not limited to:

• Rogue elements of the CIA and Military Industrial Complex
• Elements of international organized crime
• Anti-Castro Cubans

   These groups worked for their mutual benefit but there was a higher organizing principle which I doubt they even perceived. At the heart of the operation was a ritual oriented group who planned the assassination at a strategic level. This included having the regicide take place close to the 33rd Parallel and other assorted details to meet their needs.
   To what end? To ultimately control the 'dreaming mind' or what Jung would term the collective unconscious of man. Wild stuff indeed. What I'm adding to the mix is, that the final trigger, so to speak (RAW, you are missed) was the fact that the cabal wanted to profit from a space race and go so far as faking a Moon landing but knew JFK wouldn't go for it.
   So the plan to rake in billions for NASA, which the intelligence community, military industrial complex and others would get the lions share of, was in place. There was just one fly in the ointment.

   Whereas if Tricky Dick had won the election, he would have not only committed U.S. forces to the Bay of Pigs, he would be much more amiable to a fake Moon landing (which, if you believe it was faked, took place on his watch in '69).
   So the Intelligence community and Mafia were in it for self preservation, the military industrial complex to start the Viet Nam war and clean up on government NASA contracts, the Anti-Castro... well you get the picture. But the Organizing Principle (OP) was in it to preserve the lie of the Moon race.
   Let's be clear, the Organizing Principle is not American, or limited to any nationality. To wit, Kennedy called for space cooperation with Khrushchev and the Soviet Union, not a race and there exists a memo to the effect that NASA was to start working toward that. Within less than a year both leaders were gone.
   I now raise the stakes. What if the cabal never intended to go to the Moon? I give you the works of Christopher Knight and Alan Butler as well as Louis Proud. 
   Both books deal with lunar anomalies with Proud's book dipping into some of the more esoteric theories including Gurdjieff's statement that humanity is food for the Moon.
   What if the goal of NASA was just to build rockets, wow the public and collect money? Then the political rhetoric of the cold war  turned it into the Moon race which the OP knows can't happen. Why? Because there's stuff going on there that we can't know about. Whether it's the Moon is artificial and houses our alien overlords or is a life form which harvests our souls, they never intended to really go there. Along comes Kennedy with his guarantee and now they must act. So now they pay attention to their complaining constituents in the cabal and say 'Boys, have we got a ritual for you... I mean, yeah, let's get rid of the bum."
   Just really, REALLY wild speculation. Let's get even wilder. What if Bobby and JFK Jr heard rumors of the real motivations for the hit?

 What does all this have to do with Kubrick? Well, if you follow the 'Kubrick faked the Moon landings" meme, that part is obvious.
   Is it possible Kubrick was aware of Kennedy's fate? Recall there was a deleted scene from Dr. Strangelove where there's a pie fight in the bunker. At one point Peter Sellers as President Muffley gets a pie to the face.

 The line that follows, "“Gentlemen...our beloved president has been infamously struck down by a pie in the prime of his life! ”

   Also, if you subscribe to my theory that he got a peek at the OP and wanted to tell someone,then you have this final tidbit. Memorializing previous events is one thing. Prediction is another.
   Kubrick died on March 7, 1999. He specified that EWS had to be released on July 16, 1999. As many have pointed out, it was the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon. That's probably the reason. However, maybe he wanted to draw attention to an event that had not occurred yet.

July 16, 1999 was the date that John Jr's plane disappeared.

Till we meet again.

When the Going Gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro...

   I love wild speculation. I also love speculation that has the slightest glimmer of the possibility of being true.
  One example is the many occult students and writers who follow the path blazed by Kenneth Grant regarding my favorite writer H.P. Lovecraft. Namely that Lovecraft was not just a fiction writer but an occultist who was either consciously or unconsciously revealing occult truths in his work.
Grant speculates where Crowley was trained and immersed in Ritual Magick and secret societies, Lovecraft was a 'natural' or unconscious occultist. Or he may have even been in contact with a group but kept that hidden.
   All of Lovecraft's known voluminous correspondences and journal entries bespeak of his strictly materialist views and his disdain for spiritualism (ala Houdini) and Theosophy. However this hasn't  prevented any number of authors and bloggers from speculating that Grant was right. This mostly consists of examining the lives of Aleister Crowley and Lovecraft to see if their paths crossed. (They had the potential when both were in New York City for a brief time in the 20s). Or if they were just aware of the others work. (Lovecraft may have been aware of Crowley, as he was aware of Theosophy, no evidence Crowley knew about Lovecraft's work.)
  Many others have written their own grimoires based on Chaos Magick workings with the Great Old Ones (Lovecraft's creations). To be fair, some of those are written from the point of view that Lovecraft was a materialist but that the fervent following of his creations has established them as egregores, capable of action in the material world.
   The ones who feel there's more to Lovecraft and his creations than meets the eye includes the aforementioned Grant, Empire of the Wheel author Walter Bosely and the prolific Peter Levenda, who may or not be the author behind the nom de plume 'Simon' author of the 'real' Necronomicon.
By way of explanation, the Necronomicon is fictional grimoire created by Lovecraft.
   Anyway, I'd like to quote from Levenda's excellent work, 'The Dark Lord':
"In 'The Call of Cthulhu' Lovecraft reveals that the rituals required to summon the Great Old Ones involve orgies by people who are of mixed races ... This conflation of unbridled sexuality and exotic races and ethnicities is a common theme in colonialist literature and was a feature in the castigation of the practice of Tantra in India by the British colonizers."
  Why mention this? Well does anyone recall this scene in EWS?

Ok, now the initial scene involved synthesized music being played over an Orthodox Romanian rite played backwards. Once the orgy starts, Harford walks through the mansion to Indian music. The original scene called for a quotation from the Bhagavad Gita read in Hindi, that was later removed due to complaints from the Indian community.
   Also, we all know that the Somerton Mansion where the orgy takes place was shot in the old Rothschild Mansion, Mentmore Towers, right? Well, half right. The exterior was Mentmore Towers, the interior was Elveden Hall. To quote the Wikipedia entry for Elveden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elveden_Hall): 



"In 1849, the Maharajah Duleep Singh, ruler of the Sikh Empire and owner of the famous Koh-i-noor diamond was exiled to England, having been removed from his kingdom by the British East India Company.
The Maharajah purchased the 17,000-acre (69 km2) Elveden Estate in 1863 and set about rebuilding the country house and dressing it in an Italian style. However, he redesigned the interior to resemble the Mughal palaces that he had been accustomed to in his childhood. (emphasis mine)
Elveden Hall played host to a wide range of sporting activities but none rivalled the Maharajah's passion for shooting. His shooting parties were popular amongst aristocracy including Prince George, Duke of Cambridge."

Bizarre Tantric orgiastic rites filmed in a mansion that was used to housing parties of the elite? So was Kubrick a Lovecraft fan and believer? No. I'm not suggesting that, only that they arrived at a similar place by different routes. I believe, whether it is Satanic or Saturnian (as Weidner suggests, my suspicion is it's closer to Tantric) that Kubrick's Somerton group was in it for more than kinky kicks. I  believe they were 'feeding' something, invoking something... that would break through when the stars are right, as Lovecraft would say. That is one of my beliefs about the hidden meaning in Kubrick's films.  To summarize:

A. There is a hidden elite that the general public was not aware of in Kubrick's day. (They've at least heard about it now in the digital age)

B. That one of their goals is the emergence Artificial Intelligance

C. That this elite is in league with or serves another, non-human intelligence.

More on this later. Especially in regards to the Bear symbolism. Hint, like all of Kubrick's symbols is multi-layered. There's more to it than just Cold War symbolism.

Space Odyssey 2.0 - Brief post with a film recommendation

 
The study of Kubrick leads one to branch out and examine the works of other directors. I find the works of Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan to be especially interesting.

Nolan's Dark Knight series is arguably the best of the 'superhero' genre and there are many Kubrickian references in these films. Prime example, the use of the Rothschild estate, Mentmore, as the setting for Wayne Manor. But nothing prepared me for the complete homage that Interstellar is to Kubrick's masterpiece, 2001 A Space Odyssey.

I will only highlight some of the references as I highly recommend watching the movie on it's own merits and seeing for yourself.

SPOILER ALERT: If you have not seen the movie, watch it first because there are definitely spoilers to follow.

In no particular order:

• The scene where Matt McConaughey goes to a meeting with his daughters teacher who insists the Moon landings were faked, not as a theory but this is being taught as history.
• The infamous bookshelf, in one of the close ups, we see a copy of Stephen King's The Stand. An apocalyptic movie with an apocalyptic book from the author who gave us The Shining.
•  The soundtrack, at peak dramatic moments, the held final organ note is reminiscent of Also Sprach Zarathustra from 2001.
•  The wormhole detected by NASA orbits Saturn, in the original Arthur C Clarke story for 2001, the monolith sent it's signal to Saturn, not Jupiter.
• The wormhole was placed there to help humanity, the monolith was sent to evolve humanity.
• The journey through the wormhole is eerily reminiscent of Keir Dullea's journey to Jovian monolith.
•  The scene where McCoanughey loses his ship and is floating in space mirrors the final scene of 2001 with the cosmic fetus.
•  In 2001 they have the AI computer HAL, in Interstellar there's the AI computer/robot TARS.
• Whereas HAL had an order and agenda which almost killed the main character, the Matt Damon character has a similar agenda.

This is by no means exhaustive, there are many more. I will possibly spend another post focusing on one or two that I have not included here. I do believe Christopher is aware of many of Kubrick's themes and possibly understands the overall message concealed in Eyes Wide Shut.

Till we talk again.

Why Doesn't Anyone mention Capricorn One?

    So let's say you view Jay Weidner's 1st installment of Kubrick's Odyssey. You are then acquainted with the idea that Kubrick faked the Moon Landings for NASA.
   Now, you happen upon the Youtube video, The Shining Code, which reinforces and elaborates on the clues Kubrick supposedly left in his 1980 film The Shining.
   So now armed you might move onto Room 237 or some other documentary that presents similar information.

So listen to this film maker regarding Apollo 11:

“There was one event of really enormous importance that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have . . . came from a TV camera.” link

He goes on to say,  "Whenever there was something on the news about a space shuttle, they would cut to a studio in St. Louis where there was a simulation of what was going on. I grew up in the generation where my parents basically believed if it was in the newspaper it was true. That turned out to be bullshit. My generation was brought up to believe television was true, and that was bullshit too. So I was watching these simulations and I wondered what would happen if someone faked a whole story." link

 The film maker is Peter Hyams, who wrote and directed Capricorn One.
 Capricorn One is a fictional account of a faked Mars landing that was done without the complicity of the astronauts (one of whom was O.J. Simpson). The reason for the hoodwinking was to prevent funding from being cutoff from the space program.  The astronauts are briefed at the last minute and are forced to comply to save their families. One of the astronauts transmits a coded message to his wife during an in flight TV chat. What could be more relevant to a discussion of coded messages about a faked lunar landing?

I recommend the movie. Highly.

   So my question becomes, why doesn't Jay Weidner or anyone else pushing the Kubrick Apollo theory mention Peter Hyams and this film? Their critics certainly do, with the gist being that they probably thought it was a documentary.

   What's more, Peter Hyams had contact with Kubrick. In fact he wrote and directed the sequel to 2001 A Space Odyssety, entitled 2010 The Year We Make Contact.

 
From Wikipedia:

When Clarke published his novel 2010: Odyssey Two in 1982, he telephoned Stanley Kubrick, and jokingly said, "Your job is to stop anybody [from] making it [into a movie] so I won't be bothered."
... However, Peter Hyams was interested and contacted both Clarke and Kubrick for their blessings:

    'I had a long conversation with Stanley and told him what was going on. If it met with his approval, I would do the film; and if it didn't, I wouldn't. I certainly would not have thought of doing the film if I had not gotten the blessing of Kubrick. He's one of my idols; simply one of the greatest talents that's ever walked the Earth. He more or less said, 'Sure. Go do it. I don't care.' And another time he said, 'Don't be afraid. Just go do your own movie.'

Again, what could be more relevant to the Kubrick/Apollo discussion? Why leave it out, because it taints the theory and makes it seem a derivative of the film? I think a strong argument could be made that it strengthens the theory and adds to the drive to disseminate the truth.

Till later, hope all is well.

Some ramblings or Herr Ziegler, there are Seven Days in May

   OK, I know no one reads this. Most people get here by accident. I've lost a lot of the drive to build to the final conclusion I've reached and reveal what I think was the inspiration for 'Somerton'.


  But here I am, damning all grammatical guidelines and pressing on. Why? Only God and Satan know the answer.

  I feel some pain when I hear or see the work of others where something I uncovered or shared is revealed as that individuals own work.

  So for that reason, I'm going to reveal some personal conclusions, speculative of course. Anyone who tells you 'This is what Kubrick REALLY meant" doesn't know anymore than you or I do. He played it close to the vest. Don't believe it? Read "Eyes Wide Open" by Frederic Raphael. 


   I'm obsessed with Eyes Wide Shut because it's like one of those stereoscopic pictures. I can't figure it out yet but if I cross my eyes enough I'll get the image in the background. And not unlike Michael Corleone, every time I walk away...

Jan Harlan, Kubrick's brother-in-law and executive producer, reported that Kubrick was "very happy" with the film and considered it to be his "greatest contribution to the art of cinema".
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_Wide_Shut-


  Sometime, when you are bored, Google this question:

"What do the colors red blue and gold symbolize in medieval art?"

 You might see this:

Answer:

It symbolizes a heroic act performed by a lowly member of the royal court during times of inter-kingdom feuds.

  Remember the 'mock sacrifice' in EWS?

Or was the sacrifice Kubrick's?

Let's go with some WILD speculation.

First, what we know:

• In 1942 our young film maker moves to a new home/apartment. His father wants him to follow him in medicine. Stanley prefers jazz (loves the drums). His father buys him his first camera to get him interested in something to compensate for his lagging schoolwork.
• He has his breakthrough film 'Paths of Glory' made with the help of Kirk Douglas and his Byrna Production group. It's filmed in Germany, where Kubrick meets his 3rd and final wife, Christiane who is an extra in the film. She is niece of German director Veit Harlan. 
• His first blockbuster and huge commercial success is Spartacus, again with the assistance of Kirk Douglas.
• Douglas and he argue on set. Douglas in his book on the making of Spartacus tells the story of confronting Kubrick on horseback and intimidating him. He berated him in front of the entire cast and crew about not changing his clothes and shooting battle scenes. Douglas recalls in his mind, he thought people were cheering. I'm not quite sure they saw it as heroic as Kirk did. 

 I've always felt 1942 and the Kirk Douglas collaboration are two huge turning points in Kubrick's life. So much so that he felt the need to mirror both in scenes in The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut.


The Shining -  the 'moving in' scene in the Overlook with it's Summer of 42 references. (The movie Summer of 42 is playing on a TV set)
Jack Nicholson's character is named Jack. Also the name of Kubrick's father.

Eyes Wide Shut - Bill Harford and Nick Nightingale represent two sides of Kubrick. Harford is a doctor (like Kubrick's father) and Nightingale is a medical school drop out who becomes a jazz musician (Stanley didn't follow in his father's footsteps and loved jazz, wanting to be a musician.)

My big reveal. I think the Victor Ziegler character represents Kirk Douglas. 

The Ziegler character brings Harford into a world he doesn't normally interact with socially or professionally. His wife asks him if he knows anyone at the party and he answers "Not a one."

This could mirror Douglas introducing Kubrick into the studio system from which he was an outsider, previously making documentaries and small budget independent films.

Ziegler makes subtle overtures to bring Harford (and perhaps his young wife) into they're 'circle'. Maybe this mirrors something Douglas did or maybe it is just mirrored into Douglas view of what Kubrick should be doing as a director (i.e. playing ball with the producer, studio, etc)

Harford goes a little nuts in infiltrating the Somerton club and ends up in trouble. Ziegler confronts him and basically gets him to drop it.

Refer to the Spartacus dust up mentioned earlier and outlined in Douglas' book "I Am Spartacus".

Now Kubrick could be mirroring the public confrontation but the one in EWS is private. And Spartacus was made in '60, EWS in '99. It seems like a long time to get that off your chest. Perhaps Stanley felt his health failing and new this would be his last film. Or maybe he knew it was his last for other reasons.

Maybe it was something that Kirk introduced him to that he never got over and his last wish was to point a finger.

What? you say. What connection did Kirk Douglas have with Eyes Wide Shut? In the appendix to 'I Am Spartacus" Douglas tells the tale of trying to work out his differences with Kubrick. He invited Stanley to a session with his therapist. At the end of the session, Kirk's therapist tells Stanley, "Hey, you know what would make a good movie? Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle."

Kubrick and King Kill 33 Degrees

A Slight Detour

"In expressing the laws of the unity of endless diversity a symbol itself possesses an endless number of aspects from which it can be examined and it demands from the man approaching it the ability to see simultaneously from different points of view. Symbols which are transposed into the words of ordinary language become rigid - then, they grow dim and very easily become 'their own opposites' confining the meaning within the narrow dogmatic frames, without giving it even the very relative freedom of a logical examination of a subject. "

Gurdjieff, speaking in 'In Search of the Miraculous' by P.D. Ouspensky

   Don't be fooled by the sub heading, we are still dealing with Kubrick and EWS. It's just a slight detour before I go into the relationship between Kubrick and the Sumerian stele from the previous post.

   This post was inspired by a radio interview of the author Robert Sullivan regarding his book, 'The Royal Arch of Enoch'. It struck me that Sullivan along with other Masonic writers such as Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas are following the symbolic path to lead to a conclusion that is then reinforced by circumstantial evidence.
   I have no problem with this approach, it's what I'm doing here with the exception I don't believe there is a hard and fast answer. You're combining someone who is trying to convey a message, Kubrick, who also happens to be an artist. As Gurdjieff said, we must not become rigid and dogmatic as we transpose these symbols into ordinary language. And as I will post later, there is much evidence of Masonic symbolism in Kubrick's films.
   But the point I wanted to cover is that there is a group, if you will, that takes symbols very, very seriously. Such that, as many consider mathematics a universal language, this group considers symbols to be that language. They believe symbols to be a means of communicating through time, across cultures and even species. Symbols are not just visual, they are ritual. They are acted out.
  

This nattily attired gentleman is the late James Shelby Downard, co-author of a brilliant essay entitled "King Kill 33". It became the inspiration for the Marilyn Manson song of the same name.
   I do not espouse the political views or philosophies of Downard or his co-author Michael Hoffman II but that doesn't lessen the brilliance of this essay. I recommend obtaining a copy, unless you are lucky enough to have a 1st edition Apocalypse Culture, edited by Adam Parfrey. Subsequent editions did not have it.
   Downard and Hoffman are proponents of the concept of 'Masonic Sorcery' and it's practice by Arch Criminals.  I will do my best to summarize but there is sufficient information available on the web.  
   Basically, the authors describe a 1% of Masonry ("...most 'Freemasons' apparently have no idea of the evil that is part of Masonry...") who are in on the secret and that the key of Masonic Sorcery is the rulership of the collective  mind (dreaming mind or unconscious mind) of humanity.
   This 1% uses symbolic ritual (psychodramas, they call them) enacted out on the world stage to achieve their ends. The elite have already enacted two of their three alchemical rituals. The first was the destruction of the prima materia at a point close to the 33rd degree, Los Alamos, with the detonation of the 1st modern atomic bomb. The second was the Killing of the King with JFK. The 3rd is to 'Make Manifest all that is Hidden'.

    To quote the Jim Brandon in 'Weird America' via Wikipedia,


"Would you believe John F. Kennedy as a ceremonial king-who-must-die? I'm afraid there is a certain body of opinion, undoubtedly the farthest-out brain wave of assassinology yet, that maintains the killing was pulled off, not by the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, or the Mafia, but by alchemists. As I understand the hypothesis, President Kennedy was for some reason chosen as The King (remember "Camelot," "Macbird" and all that?) after the fashion of James G. Frazer and Mary Renault whose "The King Must Die" he had been given to read before his death.

This killing of the king in Dallas was related somehow to the touching off of the world's first atomic bomb at the Trinity Site in New Mexico 18 years earlier. Apparently the Bomb was the "destruction of primordial matter" stage of the grand alchemical working, but these conspiracy buffs aren't much more specific on details than were the early alchemists in their recipes. Anyway, Kennedy represented the next stage of the process - the "Death of the White King" - when he was immolated on a trinity site of his own. For, aren't Dealey Plaza and the ill-famed Triple Underpass on the bank of the old Trinity River?"

 A large part of this process is the revelation of the method, to fulfill the 3rd Law of Alchemy to "make manifest all that is hidden". According to Downard, this is done to "...seal finally and for all time the eternal pagan psychodrama which works through every mass organization of man."
   To this end, Kennedy (the representation of the king) was killed in Dallas (as close the 33rd degree latitude as possible) as a scapegoat to bring the 1% closer to their avowed goal of rebuilding Solomon's Temple on the 33rd degree. Essentially ritual and symbol are so much a part of this 1% that most of us who think linearly and literally can not comprehend their purpose.
   You would have to read the entire essay, I'm not doing it justice and Downard and Hoffman believe what they are writing.
 

What does that have to do with Kubrick or EWS? I don't know...  an elite group, committed to ritual and symbolism... hmm?


For Barry Lyndon, for the sake of the widow's son.

Notice the resemblance?