RadixJournal - Richard Spencer - Who Is HAL?

Jan. 19, 2023 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer

02:05:20

Who Is HAL?

The following is an excerpt from Mark Brahmin’s and Richard Spencer’s lecture series, The Symbolic Language of Hollywood Cinema, at ALEX university. In it, they discuss 2001: A Space Odyssey and reveal the identity of the Monolith and HAL 9000. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yeah, 1968.
	This movie still is monumentally influential, and it's perhaps most influential through parody or reference to it.
	It is usually up there on these various lists you might find from BFI or...
	American movie classics or something, as it's usually somewhere in the top 10 of the greatest films ever made, sometimes in the top five.
	I do think that there is serious messaging going on, but as with a lot of things with Kubrick, that messaging is layered and obscured really by the nature of the film itself.
	So Kubrick had basically two hits on his hands by the 1960s, and that is Lolita and Dr. Strangelove.
	Lolita was actually nominated for Best Picture.
	Dr. Strangelove was putting Kubrick in a place of a modern auteur, but also someone who could create box office hits.
	I think he was originally given about $4 million in 1964, 1965.
	This was a long process of filmmaking.
	Most of it was filmed in 1966.
	There was a long post-production.
	And that budget ballooned to $11 million or so, and it produced $150 million.
	So this was a highly successful movie.
	I don't get it.
	Where's the story?
	et cetera, but overwhelmingly it became legendary pretty quickly.
	Kubrick also, as you probably know, did have a foot in I think that actually does tell us a little bit about what this movie might very well really be about.
	He, of course, was...
	Hired to direct Spartacus, starring Kurt Douglas, and he came on late in the game.
	It wasn't really his film, but you can see a lot of Kubrick in that movie, and it is a classic.
	You can tell that Kubrick came from the Hollywood that was creating these massive biblical epics like the Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, etc.
	I actually would suggest that thinking about 2001 in that way might help to unlock it.
	As you also might know, 2001 was a different film in many ways.
	It's obviously hugely different than any film ever made.
	Watching it, I am kind of amazed at his confidence to do what he did.
	He was around 35 to 40 when this film was produced.
	If I was a relatively young guy and I was working in Hollywood, the thought of just doing this, having a film in which the first 20 minutes, I believe, is silent, there's no dialogue, and then repeat that again with, you know, the final lines are again, Haywood Floyd, he opens and closes the dialogue, basically announcing that...
	You know, the purpose of this monolith is still a mystery.
	And then going on for another 20 to 30 minutes of uninterrupted visuals, it is remarkable.
	There obviously is no love interest, although I guess maybe there is on some deep level.
	There are women in this movie, but they...
	Play very side roles.
	There's certainly no traditional romance.
	Even the action is often off-screen.
	And again, the level of confidence to produce a movie like this and then show it to the American public and for them to overall like it, it made 10 times its budget or something like that, just shows a level of confidence and mastery that...
	We should all aspire to.
	As you might know, this was filmed in Cinerama.
	I guess the best comparison to it is IMAX.
	It is a massive screen.
	It is not a domed screen, but it is a massive screen that basically takes up the entirety of your vision.
	Also, in many theaters where it was played, and I do think this is significant, there was actually the use of a curtain.
	In the overture, people might very well have been getting seated, excuse me, having a bite of popcorn, and then the curtains would actually...
	part and reveal the MGM logo with the lion.
	The logo itself might actually very well be significant.
	Another major aspect of this is the use of music, which is interesting and heady, but I think also might give us a sense of what Kubrick is trying to do.
	So, there was a man, I believe his name was Peter North, who was a composer who was hired to write the original score for the film, and he, in fact, did write a score for the film, and Kubrick cut every note of it.
	And instead, he used famous recordings, perhaps significantly, including from Herbert von Karajan.
	Boom was another one who was a very famous member of the National Socialist Party.
	Maybe that has nothing to do with it.
	Kubrick creates movies that are so layered.
	I think it does have something to do with it.
	But now, Ligeti is a postmodern conductor, worked with the Schoenberg's 12-tone method.
	Although, just as you can tell, Worked in a way that he's creating that kind of music that people, you know, joke about, you know, having to plug their ears or it's dissonant.
	You don't know where it's going.
	It's chaotic.
	And I think Kubrick was using it for that effect.
	So you hear Ligeti at the beginning with what I think, what I would suggest represents chaos before creation.
	And I think the music is perfect for that.
	You hear also these kind of choral music and with the monolith.
	And there's a haunting, but almost, you know, it's dissonant and chaotic, but almost religious-like in its sound.
	And then you, in the final moments of what's called the Stargate moment, that's what usually people call it.
	That's not anywhere in the text or in the script or anything.
	Beyond the Infinite, that piece is actually entitled Rates.
	There are two other famous pieces.
	Now, there's a Cacciatorian ballet suite that is played, and it's very kind of melancholic.
	It's played when, after we meet Haywood Floyd...
	Dave Bowman and Frank Poole's ship is traveling from left to right across the screen.
	And you have this kind of melancholic ballet, and it kind of sets the mood for life on that ship, which is lifeless and emotionless.
	And Hal is the only one there with personality and things like that.
	So there's that.
	The two most famous are, of course, a...
	First off, the very famous piece, Alzo Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss.
	Famous for the, you know...
	So, one, five, one, and then three, three flat.
	So...
	It's spelling out the basic language of music, basically the tonic and the dominant, or C and G. It's like if you were to try to get to a root of harmony, it would be the perfect fifth.
	And he starts out with that, and it is kind of the beginning of the world.
	Richard Strauss also evokes Nietzsche.
	And not just Nietzsche, but thus spoke Zarathustra.
	We're, of course, greeted with the star child who is a kind of evolution of Bowman or maybe reincarnation of Bowman or something.
	I think that you can even see Bowman's face in the fetus.
	So I think it is Bowman.
	I don't think this is an alien.
	I think it's an advancement of mankind.
	By using that music specifically, he's evoking Strauss, obviously, he's evoking Nietzsche, and not just Nietzsche, but Zarathustra, and not just Zarathustra, but one of Zarathustra's key images in also spoke Zarathustra, which is the child as part of the three metamorphoses.
	So he has the metamorphoses of the camel.
	Who, in effect, bears the burden.
	I think Nietzsche is mostly thinking about a kind of monk-like person, a religious person who's maintaining this order and bearing the burden of life and morality and continuing it.
	In a completely uncreative fashion.
	A camel can walk across the desert, of course.
	Then he evokes a lion that is basically the power of negation in a dialectic.
	So the lion has claws and it fiercely attacks what he imagines as the ultimate immorality, which is a serpent or dragon.
	With scales, and he's slashing away at it.
	He's engaging in just extreme, pure criticism.
	But even the lion can't quite be creative.
	This is why I mentioned a little bit earlier that that MGM logo might actually be extremely significant if we know Kubrick.
	Usually, forget about the logos.
	You're just paying respects to the people who put up the money for these movies.
	With someone like Kubrick, I don't think it's too much to suggest that that was an artistic choice.
	It comes after the overture.
	And then finally, Nietzsche imagines the metamorphosis after all this criticism has been done, and in a way, the old morality has been torn apart, a child will arise.
	And this is a child, in many ways, without memory.
	Without any sort of burden of the past or existing morality who can think for his or herself in a way and be creative and see the world as kind of free play.
	And, you know, I think Kubrick could have evoked this with simply the image of the fetus.
	The Starchild, but with that image superimposed over Richard Strauss' Zarathustra piece, tone poem, it hammers it home.
	I mean, clearly Kubrick is evoking this very strongly.
	There's also the Johann Strauss Waltz, which is interesting that Richard and Johann share a surname.
	And that...
	And there's a kind of frivolity and irony also, I would say.
	That piece also plays over the end credits.
	And this is what I'm...
	What I would suggest with this film is that there are many layers to it and there are many collaborators who joined with Kubrick but ultimately he was playing his own game.
	It's a very similar thing with The Shining where he adapts this Stephen King novel and very early on Stephen King just loathes it.
	You've betrayed the novel.
	you've turned it into your own thing.
	Well, this is how, what Kubrick does.
	He needs some sort of source material and, and actually there are multiple source materials that he's trying to, to reference and integrate.
	And he takes these as his own vehicle and pushes them forward into some place that I think his collaborators aren't even quite aware of.
	so, Almost just as famous as the movie is the book.
	Here's my copy, actually.
	2001 by Arthur C. Clarke.
	And it actually was released a few months after the movie.
	Kubrick hired and paid Arthur C. Clarke himself before getting funding from MGM.
	So Arthur C. Clarke was He might...
	Perhaps his greatest impact, if not this film, was the fact that he wrote an article speculating about linking the planet through satellite communications where every single person on the planet would be instantaneously...
	You have to imagine these things before you can implement them, and he did that.
	So he is a genius and a technologist, futurist of the highest order.
	He also wrote many, many short stories and novels and novellas in which he...
	And so Kubrick's idea was that there's never been a great science fiction movie.
	We want to create the first good science fiction movie.
	So we might almost need to create our own source material.
	And so he hired Clark to write this novel.
	And that, of course, took place over a few years.
	The novel does...
	Divert from the movie in some very significant and important ways, most notably in the monolith itself, which is depicted as a crystal in the novel.
	It is a large monolith, but it's a crystal and it's actually transparent.
	Kubrick went in a very different way, which is to have this black monolith, which...
	Is effectively stone and thus reminds us also of some prehistoric monoliths like Stonehenge, perhaps most famously, but there are many other examples of this around the world where hunter-gatherer civilizations,
	you want to call them that we're kind of emerging into what we would understand as civilization and we're able to manipulate stone actually in ways that is still incredible to this day.
	The Giza pyramids and so on are other examples of this.
	So it evokes the past in that way.
	It evokes stone.
	And I think it might very well evoke other things as well.
	So Kubrick is his own person.
	Kubrick is also rather cagey and I think Kubrick...
	trying to do.
	Another one of these deceptive facts is that Arthur C. Clarke, in his way, kind of wants to explain everything.
	And I think Kubrick...
	Thinks more metaphorically and allows something to be ambiguous.
	So it both is this thing and is something much bigger than that.
	I mean, an excellent example of this is how the computer.
	So this is from chapter 16 of 2001.
	The sixth member of the crew cared for none of these things, for it was not human.
	It was the highly advanced HAL 9000 computer, the brain and nervous system of the ship.
	HAL, for heuristically programmed algorithmic computer, no less, was a masterwork of the third computer breakthrough.
	And he goes on talking about the early developments of computers with vacuum tubes and then the move towards silicon and the creation of an intelligence that was...
	I think something like the heuristically programmed algorithmic computer is a euphemism or cover story, as it were, about what this film is actually about.
	And I think there's also some layers to who Hal actually is.
	And I think there's an interesting debate to be had about...
	His relationship to the monolith, his relationship to humanity as well.
	Perhaps one of the most famous ideas is Hal is IBM.
	So if you move the letters up one letter, H becomes I, A becomes B, L becomes M. So it's IBM.
	IBM also does...
	In the film, when Bowman is searching for Frank Poole, who's flowing out into deep space, he actually moves and touches a panel on his arm, and you can see an IBM logo there.
	There's some other references.
	So I definitely think Kubrick might be telling you this is IBM, but I think even that is kind of a cover story.
	That is kind of an exoteric layer to what Hal represents.
	I do think the names are very significant.
	So you can see here the cast list.
	There's Dr. Dave Bowman.
	None of these actors had...
	Huge careers.
	And as you can see, there is a kind of minimalist acting style that Kubrick is promoting in this film.
	Emotionless, very realistic in some ways, but stylized in others.
	So his name is David Bowman.
	David, we know what that represents, that name.
	One of the most famous Jews, maybe the second most famous Jews to Jesus Christ.
	Bowman is also very interesting.
	The key to unlocking that might be the very title itself, in Odyssey.
	So, is the archer that he is referencing Odysseus?
	Likely, although you could take this even further.
	Frank Pool.
	Frank, as that word is used, is also very interesting.
	Very kind of informative.
	To be frank, as we say.
	But of course that references the Franks and France and German peoples.
	Pool is also interesting.
	There might be some...
	Components to that, I do think that there's an important water pool that the ape men are gathering by.
	I think that perhaps is what the reference is.
	Haywood Floyd, I'm not as sure about that one.
	I've already discussed how.
	And then it is interesting that the one ape who...
	is able to communicate with the monolith and basically has some kind of knowledge implanted in him, is named Moonwatcher.
	And this is explained in the book as well of, you know, this ape man who doesn't really have our memory and doesn't quite have our consciousness, but, you know, the way he's described by Clark, he has a certain awareness of things.
	And there's a touching scene even where his father dies, as these apes do, and he ultimately takes his father outside of the cave to be eaten by leopards or some kind of primitive beast.
	And yet he feels something.
	He actually mourns for a little bit.
	So you can see in this ape man...
	As he's depicted by Clark, a kind of awakening towards some kind of humanity.
	But it's curious that he's called Moonwatcher.
	So he's always staring up at the moon.
	And he'll sometimes reach out and try to touch the moon.
	But he seems to communicate with the moon.
	And I also think that that is highly significant.
	One more thing before I pass the baton and also before we start kind of watching some selections.
	So a lot of times with Kubrick, one film will lead to the next one.
	And there will be some kind of idea that gets raised in a film and he wants to further develop it in another one.
	And of course...
	All of his films are kind of referencing each other.
	All of his films kind of exist in the same cinematic universe, as it were.
	Stylistically, symbolically, and even with references in terms of scenes and things like that, there are certain looks, there are certain aesthetic choices and symbols that seem to recur.
	One...
	I'll just throw this out there.
	After the ape men communicate with the monolith, they, of course, understand how to use weapons and they start beating up the other tribe and slapping them.
	There's this weird scene in Full Metal Jacket where Sergeant Pyle is being beaten by pillowcases filled with soap.
	The reminiscence is kind of uncanny.
	Now, you could say, oh, it's the same director, so he kind of does things in a certain way.
	Sure, but I think he might actually be kind of interlocking his movies.
	And that is very interesting.
	But anyway, why I mentioned this was that Dr. Strangelove was maybe Kubrick's first big artistic...
	triumph where he used satire and irony and horror and political commentary to create a sensation of a film.
	And understandably, Kubrick, along with Clark, were intensely concerned with nuclear warfare.
	In fact, both of them thought that a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States would likely occur in their lifetimes.
	And they were certainly not alone in having this fear.
	And that, of course, is what Dr. Strangelove is about.
	There was one interview with Kubrick where he says, well, it's not even just warfare itself.
	And he said, even if there's a 99.9% chance that won't happen, that actually means there's 100% chance of the course of 20 years.
	So again, very understandable fears, but I think also some of these things might kind of unlock.
	What 2001 is ultimately about.
	So this is actually a discarded voiceover from the script of Dr. Strangelove.
	The full consequences of nuclear weapons seem to escape all governments and their people when the primitive organization of sovereign nation states still flourished and the archaic institution of war had not yet been forbidden by law.
	This was, again, a discarded voiceover.
	What he imagined was that at either the beginning or the end of Dr. Strangelove, they would show an image of a desert, very much like the Dawn of Man image.
	And you would have this alien narrate these lines.
	So he was like an enlightened alien looking upon the folly of humanity.
	Lamenting the fact that they still were engaged in the primitive superstitions of nation states and war, almost like we would look on the Middle Ages and lament that they were still engaging in bloodletting or burning witches or something like that, just as this primitive formation.
	Again, this was discarded.
	I think Kubrick does have a tendency to...
	As opposed to just telling you what something's about, he'll instead engage in a certain kind of irony.
	So instead of this heavy-handed voiceover that's almost sanctimonious, you instead have this ironic light touch of the, we'll meet again with nuclear weapons going on.
	And I think Kubrick always makes those choices, and he allows the visual to tell the story.
	Very similarly, with Arthur C. Clarke in 2001, Kubrick was in charge.
	He was the director of this picture.
	He had final say.
	Arthur C. Clarke was writing many voiceovers that would effectively explain.
	All of these situations.
	Kubrick ultimately discarded them and he created a film that's visual and mystical and is asking you to interpret things.
	And I think also is a way to visually convey messages that would have been lost, perhaps, if Arthur C. Clarke's narration had simply told you what the movie is about.
	But I do think that the movie is about human evolution and enlightenment, but it's also about human extinction.
	It is a sci-fi, almost atheistic fantasy, but I also think that it has one foot in the biblical epics of the decade prior.
	This tension is actually very important in understanding that.
	I think your reading is correct.
	I think that there is a kind of...
	I don't know that this film is atheistic, though.
	I don't think it is.
	I think it's atheistic on the surface.
	Yeah.
	It seems like a kind of frivolous comparison, but there are similarities to...
	Segal Superman, actually.
	It's evident that Kubrick is referencing Nietzsche in this film.
	I think that that's, you know, kind of without question.
	But I think in some ways he's returning symbols to Jews or he's kind of like taking ownership of symbols again from Nietzsche.
	And so in that way, it's similar to Segal Superman, which is also an effort to Take a symbol from Nietzsche or kind of redefine the Superman.
	And with Siegel, he makes the Superman Jewish, famously.
	So I think similar, there's a kind of similar dynamic occurring here as well.
	I think that, I mean, Kubrick is a master filmmaker.
	There's no question about it.
	And this is a great film.
	But I think, so the, it's much less obvious that it's occurring.
	With 2001, then when you look at Siegel's Superman, where it seems pretty obvious.
	I think the film itself, in my view, the monolith is definitely a reference to Yahweh or the Jewish God.
	So now you could say, well...
	That's reductive or it's not giving the film enough credit.
	But I think that I would strongly assert that that's the symbol that this black monolith represents.
	And there's a number of reasons.
	And the film itself ends up kind of revealing or confirming a lot of my thesis regarding proto-Jews, for example.
	So in other words...
	It's not just referencing the Bible, though it is doing that.
	I think that that's...
	You mentioned this water source that becomes a kind of symbol at the beginning of the film.
	There's also, in the Hebrew Bible, Isaac and Abraham are also battling with Philistines over wells, right?
	Ownership of wells.
	I think it's Genesis 26 or thereabouts.
	So that's when Isaac is kind of renewing this battle for ownership of whales in what will become ancient Israel against these Philistines.
	And there, I think that I have the reading that the whales also represent sexual resource, right?
	So that there's a kind of vaginal significance to the whales as well.
	But I think that that's what's occurring in the beginning of the film.
	over this water resource now you can read it as just a water resource or whatever the case might be but inherently of course if you're gaining resources you're gaining sexual access um yeah it's you know with resources come brides or women so it's it's almost even unnecessary it's almost even unnecessary to point to the well as a vaginal symbol in that regard but what
	What is conveyed in the film, though, is that these apes gain an advantage through religion, effectively, or through their connection to Yahweh or this symbol, this stone that represents a divine power.
	So religion becomes a way, it becomes a kind of technology that allows them to wage warfare against other...
	Otherwise equal tribes, right?
	So in other words, there's no way to distinguish between these two ape tribes, except that one's basically got this god force on its side that's giving it a kind of intelligence, but represents a kind of technology that makes it invincible against this other tribe.
	And so I think that that's the message that Kubrick is conveying, is that religion represents a technology that allows dominance and success against other, you know, human or primate groups.
	Human groups, of course, right, is the metaphor.
	And, you know...
	But, you know, there are other, and you could go a little deeper with some of this stuff, like the bone even could have a phallic significance as opposed to just representing a weapon, for example.
	Do you think that the murder is a kind of Cain and Abel reference as well?
	I felt that this whole thing was like, you know, the Ligeti music at the beginning was the chaos and the Primal notes of Richard Strauss were kind of like bringing form.
	You bring music.
	You have the tonic and dominant note, the basis of all harmony and music.
	And so it's kind of like a creation story.
	And then Yahweh appears to these primitive men.
	So I guess they're in the garden to some extent, I guess.
	See, I think there might just be a lot of kind of conflation here, but it's all biblical.
	I mean, in some ways, Moonwatcher is less innocent after committing a murder.
	You know, there is a kind of innocence of living among the animals, and then you learn something, you gain a certain consciousness, and you're ultimately the one that's going to kill them.
	This is expressed in the novel as well, how at the beginning the apes might just kind of fight a little bit, but they really didn't have the time or energy to engage in all-out warfare.
	They were desperately trying to survive.
	But then now you're a murderer.
	Well, what I would say is that the distinction, of course, or the important distinction is that Cain loses the favor of Yahweh through his murder.
	Right.
	Whereas I don't think that that occurs in this instance.
	True.
	Very, very important.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And so, I mean, I think it does have that feel, though.
	But I think that's actually sort of helpful for the kind of esotericism of the film, because someone could very easily kind of come to the conclusion that it's a reference to Cain and Abel.
	But then from there, they might sort of lose the thread, right?
	Because...
	In Cain, I read as a Gentile figure, even though in the Middle Ages, he would be associated with a wandering Jew.
	But I think a kind of better reading of Cain, who's the firstborn of Adam, is that he's a Gentile figure, and he's a kind of a marshal.
	He's a farmer.
	He's like Mars, the farmer.
	He's like Adam, too.
	Adam is also a farmer.
	And Abel is a shepherd.
	And Seth, as well as a shepherd, and Seth kind of replaces Abel after he's killed.
	And in fact, my reading is that both Cain and Abel are Gentile figures, ultimately, and that Seth and Yahweh are sort of the Jewish figures in that story, the story of essentially four figures.
	But that Abel, in fact, that Abel is a Gentile figure, just briefly, is kind of revealed by his name, which means...
	Idle or vanity and vapor as well.
	So he's evidently not indicated as a figure of permanence or a figure, a Jewish figure essentially, right?
	Because there is this idea of abidance with Jews.
	The symbol of the stone, for example, would be one of those symbols that indicates abidance, right?
	So able to represent something kind of opposite or contrary to that.
	And also, there is some language in the Hebrew Bible that suggests that it might actually be, you know, because there are making, the Hebrew in the Hebrew Bible, I argue, and it's most obvious with Seth, because Seth, the name Seth is also found with the Egyptian god Seth or Set.
	But there are references being made to cults in Egypt with these names.
	But Abel in particular is understood as Ra.
	Ra means shepherd.
	His name is not Ra, but he's called Ra.
	He's the first one who's called Ra, I believe, which means shepherd, but it also means seer, and it has a connection to eyesight.
	All these symbols are attached to Ra, who is represented by the eye of Ra, for example.
	That word even may mean falcon, and Ra was a falcon-headed.
	You know what I mean?
	So I think that there's indications that Abel is a reference to Ra.
	And Ra is a kind of solar, celestial god.
	If he's not Arian in invention, right?
	This is another question.
	If he's not Arian in invention, he is an Arian symbol.
	So he represents Arian nobility or the pharaohs.
	He represents a ruling nobility.
	You know what I mean?
	And he's a kind of shepherd that is killed by this other, I argue, is a Gentile figure in Cain.
	But that opens the door for Seth.
	And also Yahweh is kind of orchestrating these things because Yahweh's favoring Abel.
	But then Abel dies and Yahweh favors Seth.
	And I argue he may even be the father of Seth.
	Some of the Hebrew seems to indicate that.
	I think you understand my point.
	Let's focus on the monolith itself.
	Well, so the stone as a symbol becomes one of these symbols of Yahweh, right?
	So there are symbols that we can associate with Yahweh and probably the most salient, I would say, if I had to pick two, it's fire and the stone are kind of the most salient symbols that you could associate with Yahweh.
	Yahweh is the consuming fire and part of this is a metaphor about sacrifices being given to Yahweh, you know, whether sheep Our grain, these different sacrifices given to Yahweh.
	And then the stone is the other symbol.
	He's an abiding stone.
	So on that level, the monolith, we can associate with Yahweh, right?
	Now, the fact that it's black may also be...
	Yahweh can also be associated with black, I argue, as well.
	In the Song of Solomon, for example, in the first six lines, the Song of Solomon is a love poem that features Yahweh and an unnamed fair mistress, and she's described as fair in this poem.
	But in the first six lines, people dispute who is speaking during those lines, and Christians indicate that it's a...
	It's the female speaking.
	But that doesn't make sense, of course, that it's the female speaking, and there are a couple of reasons for that.
	The person, the speaker says, you know, is a shame that they're black or dark.
	Don't look at me because I'm black or dark.
	I'm paraphrasing here.
	And he claims, and I'm going to say he, because I'm confident it's the male speaking, that he's been cast out by his brothers to become a...
	You know, a person working in the vineyard.
	So in this way, we see him as similar to Bacchus, who is also this figure of vineyards and a figure associated with the vine and with winemaking and this sort of thing.
	And also, and that's also we see with Judah.
	Judah is also kind of indicated as a bacchanal.
	Figure during Jacob's blessing where he's got a wine-stained vestment and he's got a donkey that's under a vine, right?
	So he's associated with these kind of bacchanal symbols.
	And I argue that he's essentially indicated as Bacchus.
	And Bacchus is also associated with the donkey.
	And I argue the donkey represents a Gentile or something, this kind of Jewish.
	Yahweh Bacchus is a stride in dominating effectively through degeneracy, through, you know, the bacchanal arts or whatever as it were.
	So, but not to go too far afield.
	Yeah, so the stone, but...
	The stone itself, we can associate with Yahweh.
	But also, and this is something that Jung points out, and I think that, you know, Kubrick is obviously working at a very high level as a symbolist.
	And so I think he's aware of these things.
	And the work itself is a sophisticated symbolist work.
	But Jung points out that, you know, I mean, there...
	Young points out, there are thinkers that think that the Israelites were worshipping Saturn, right?
	And then we have Tacitus saying that the Saturn cult is a proto-Jewish cult, effectively.
	He points to the Saturn cult in Crete in particular.
	But the Sabeans also are known to have worshipped Saturn.
	And I argued that they were also a proto-Jewish group.
	The Sabeans, they had a kingdom.
	South Arabia, an important kingdom, the most important kingdom apparently in South Arabia in the ancient world.
	And they, again, I argue a proto-Jewish group, but they also worship Saturn in the form of a black rock, right?
	So when we think of the Kaaba that's worshipped by the Muslims in Mecca, they do seven...
	Circulations.
	That's the ritual.
	They go seven times around this Kaaba.
	And in the Kaaba is the black stone contained in the Kaaba.
	And it's kind of featured in there in this sort of like vaginal appearing hole in the Kaaba.
	There's this black stone inserted in there and they kiss it as they go around.
	But they do seven ambulations around this Kaaba.
	Seven, of course, is also a reference to Saturn, right?
	Seven, which I've said before, I'm sure, in this class, seven is a reference to Saturn.
	In the ancient astrology, the number seven identifies the planet Saturn, right?
	And seven also becomes a symbol in this film as well, especially with these sort of weird diamonds that we see.
	At the end, in that very, like, trippy sequence at the end of the film, I think that that also becomes a reference to Saturn.
	But, so, I think that these references are being made, you know, so both the color black and the stone, independently, we can associate with Jews or Yahweh.
	But then, again, we see the Sabeans worshipping Saturn, and, of course, Yahweh can also be associated with Saturn.
	We see them, the Sabaeans, worshipping a stone, a black stone as well.
	And the Sabaeans actually make an appearance in the Hebrew Bible, just to finish up this one point, where Queen Sheba has this famous, very friendly visit with King Solomon, who's understood as the wisest of the Jews.
	Queen Sheba, it might be...
	Insinuated there's a kind of romantic relationship there, but she tests him basically with riddles or puzzles, and he proves that he's the wisest, right?
	I mean, he literally could be describing Jem on some level in the sense that she's a kind of proto-Jewish figure coming from this proto-Jewish kingdom and basically meeting with another Jew, right?
	She's part of a diaspora.
	Of these proto-Jews in the ancient world, of which Solomon is also, so that they're kin, ultimately.
	And that's kind of strongly conveyed in this parable, where they understand each other on a kind of esoteric level, where he's able to kind of solve her riddles and this sort of thing.
	So that's just one of the gods that's being referenced, one of the ancient proto-Jewish gods that's being referenced.
	You know, one of the currently most famous analyses on YouTube is, I think, a good one, but I think it only gets at the surface level of all this.
	So it's this man named Rob Ager, who I've talked about before.
	Very interesting guy.
	Really does very close, detailed work.
	I think he even...
	He uses 4K prints of the films and goes way in there.
	And he's a bit of a filmmaker himself, so kind of like Mark, he kind of knows the craft.
	But his interpretation is that the black monolith is the Cinerama screen itself.
	And so basically Kubrick is saying that there's this...
	Because it's very interesting.
	How exact references to alien life are kind of removed from the film.
	So at no point does someone say, we're going to go visit the aliens.
	Now, in the novel, it's made explicit and it's described well, as well as it could be done.
	And in fact, Kubrick filmed some deleted scenes.
	I don't know if they've ever been published in any way.
	I don't think so.
	But they have been mentioned in memoirs.
	So he even filmed some scenes of alien life and so on.
	And all of that is cut.
	You could interpret that in a few ways, like, oh, it wasn't visually spectacular enough or it wasn't working and Kubrick got rid of it.
	But you can also see like Kubrick, So again, Ager believes that the monolith is a movie screen, in effect, and he makes good arguments about this.
	There's this constant theme of something turning vertical to horizontal.
	You see that even within the Stargate sequence where they're looking at Jupiter.
	You're first looking at it as we imagine Jupiter like we've seen in charts or things like that.
	And then you start to get to this alignment where you're turned around.
	Very similar to the opening shots of the film where you're on the moon and then you're looking horizontally at the alignment of the sun, earth, and moon.
	Similar in Jupiter.
	And what he's saying is that he wants you to turn the monolith over to its side and see it as a movie screen.
	And that the film medium will be a way of communicating enlightenment to the masses.
	So there's almost a sinister element to that.
	There could be layers.
	There could be layers.
	I think, you know, is he right?
	I don't quite know.
	But does he make a really compelling argument?
	Yes.
	Would Kubrick be the type of person to do that?
	Also, yes.
	So I think there's reason to believe that Ager's right.
	But I think that's kind of avoiding the deeper things.
	I mean, the movie screen is just the next stage in media.
	And it's actually kind of been surpassed by another monolith that we hold in our pockets.
	This thing.
	You know?
	And there's many monoliths in here.
	So Hal himself is a monolith with a red eye.
	Even when Heywood Floyd is going to the bathroom on his trip to the moon.
	There is a black monolith rectangle that has the instructions for a zero-gravity toilet, and he's reading it.
	So it's a reference to media itself.
	And sure, maybe Kubrick did see the movie screen, and particularly even the Cinerama.
	He might have kind of overestimated its power, but he saw that as like, this is the next stage of evolution of media, how we enlighten.
	And convey messages to the public.
	But it's also deeper than that.
	I mean, the monolith is also the tablets on which the Ten Commandments are inscribed.
	It is basically a medium of communication, and in that way, directly references Yahweh again.
	I would take a stronger reading, which I think is what you're suggesting, is that the monolith is Yahweh himself.
	Yeah, but again, it's not to like, because there also could be a kind of Jungian significance to his reading as well, which I don't think we should discount.
	In other words, he could be picking up on something that may not have even been intended, or maybe it was intended as a kind of layer of symbolism.
	But I think that the point is, though, is that often Jem is layered.
	And the reason why this is meaningful, because often you'll be making esoteric references to things that are contemporary, for example, political things that are contemporary, but then it'll have a deeper biblical significance, just to use one example.
	But it could be layered in many ways, right?
	And a name, for example, could be a double entendre.
	It could have two intended meanings, right?
	But I think that this is a...
	It's an important aspect of gem because it allows people to kind of feel like they've decoded something when they haven't reached the final level.
	You know what I'm saying?
	So they'll say, okay, well, that's solved.
	That mystery is solved.
	And I'll move on.
	It doesn't have any greater significance than that.
	Or even a kind of more ominous meaning or significance, right?
	So I think that that's a kind of a virtue.
	If we look at it as a kind of human technology, and it contributes to sort of the survivability of works of GEM or REM is because they can't, you know, some people will not necessarily have false readings, but they'll have shallow readings, or not even necessarily that shallow.
	They'll have relatively deep readings, but they're not reaching sort of the bottom of it.
	You know what I mean?
	So I think that that's a kind of remarkable aspect of Jim, which again is one of the reasons that we should be deploying this technology ourselves in art.
	One remark, though, I would make, though, is I think that the eye of Hal, and this is my reading, may have a kind of solar significance.
	Probably this is obvious based on what we've said already, but I don't read Hal as a kind of Jewish force that he represents.
	More kind of Gentile competitor, you know, that's the most basic reading of it.
	But yeah, so he also represents a kind of servant, and he also represents a vessel, right?
	And both, I think, are important.
	And I think that there's a kind of, and I think this is intended, too.
	There's a numerology in here.
	We've seen it already with the seven.
	When we look at the number of people on the ship, it's six.
	Hal is actually referred to as the sixth member of the crew.
	It's made explicit, yeah.
	I think the number six would suggest that he's a Gentile figure.
	Let's do this.
	Let's watch two scenes.
	I chose one scene with Hal where I think the ambiguity is suggested, but let's actually watch this.
	This is a very famous scene of the apes.
	And let's just kind of watch the whole thing.
	It's a very famous scene of the apes.
	It's a very famous scene of the apes.
	This thing appears, this black rock, and I think the music choice here is incredible.
	You know, it's modernist, high modernist, or even kind of post-modernist music, but at least the way I hear it, it's almost like there's this holy choir band of angels inside the monolith, and you're hearing echoes from it.
	It's just my kind of feeling towards it.
	But I do think it's given a holy significance through this music choice.
	Definitely.
	That's one of our clues too, right?
	Yes.
	And I think it's very artfully done in the sense that he's using this modern music, which is just evoking a kind of choir of angels or something.
	I think it's amazing.
	But also, we are here again at this alignment that...
	We remember from the opening scene of 2001 of an alignment of the moon, the crescent moon up there, and he is Moonwatcher, and then the sun, which I guess is now kind of risen, we're almost at midday, kind of peaking above the monolith.
	It's an amazing image just in itself, of course.
	But what do you think this is indicating?
	Well, you know, of course, there's some degree of speculation here.
	But, you know, one thing.
	So another deity that I think that's being referenced, another proto-Jewish deity that's being referenced is Nana or Sin.
	The Akkadian name is Sin.
	The Sumerian name is Nana, a moon god.
	And this is something that Evola points out.
	It's something that Jews themselves point out, but Jews have a kind of lunar identity versus an Aryan solar identity, right?
	Apollo would be an example, of course, of an Aryan solar identity.
	And then again, how would that I, that I argue is solar, and the sun is also given a kind of I significance in ancient symbolism, especially in Egypt.
	And that crescent moon in particular becomes a symbol of Nana in the ancient world.
	And I think, if I'm remembering correctly, it becomes a kind of crest that's depicted on his head as horns.
	He becomes the lunar bowl, for example.
	You know what I mean?
	The crescent moon in particular becomes a symbol of Nana or Sin.
	And again, of course, when the astronauts discover, the scientists discover...
	This monolith, they discover it on the moon, of course, right?
	So there's additional references to the moon, or this monolith is given a kind of lunar significance.
	And in fact, toward the end of the film, when David Bowman is looking into the monolith, right before the scene of the star baby, the camera tracks into the blackness of the monolith.
	And then the first thing you see is the moon, a full moon, right?
	So the lunar significance is important here.
	And it's actually because it's sort of, I don't know what time of day, it's dusk apparently here.
	It's actually more striking.
	But in any case, this crescent moon becomes a symbol in the film.
	Again, that's also a proto-Jewish deity and Jews have a lunar significance that we associate, especially with Mesopotamia, as opposed to Egypt, which is understood as a kind of more helocentric or solar society with the Pharaoh related to the sun and to the god of Ra, for example.
	But in Mesopotamia, you know, where we understand Abraham comes from, Abraham hails from...
	Ur, the city of Ur.
	And the city of Ur was the seat of Nana's cult.
	And in fact, there's an etymology for Ur that relates it to the moon cult in Mesopotamia.
	So we have this idea of...
	Jews as a lunar people and Aryans as a solar people.
	And that's even reflected in the calendars.
	The Gregorian calendar, for example, is a solar calendar.
	Apparently the Egyptians also had a solar calendar.
	But the Mesopotamian calendar is lunar.
	And that's also true of the Hebrew.
	The Hebrew calendar is both solar and lunar.
	I believe this is correct.
	The Muslim calendar is lunar.
	But this is the reason that they have these sort of movable feasts or holidays in both Judaism and in Islam.
	That's to say that it's not always the same date when these holidays are celebrated because it's a different calendar.
	It's a lunar calendar.
	So we're talking about a lunar people versus a solar people.
	And again, Evola, too, is credit.
	Evola has many flaws, but this is something that he kind of points out and maybe even emphasizes, and it's a good thing to point out, you know what I mean?
	So the nocturnal, the lunar, the thonic, these are all symbols that we can relate to Jews and to proto-Jews in the ancient world.
	But what's the significance of the sun here sort of being bisected?
	And this is speculation, but I could argue that the...
	The obelisk, because I think the stone also has a phallic significance, and I point that out in my work.
	So the stone, it could be, you could be arguing that the stone has a phallic relationship to the sun, which takes on a kind of vaginal or womb significance, as it did in Egypt, for example.
	The sun becomes the womb of Ra, for example, right?
	So there's this idea of intermixture or admixing, right?
	And so the stone, Yahweh himself, becomes a kind of phallic symbol that allows the power to allow that admixture, right?
	So that's one reading you can have of it.
	I mean, again, it's a kind of, it's a sort of Freudian slash Brahmin reading, I suppose.
	But I think that that's a possibility, you know, the existence of the sun.
	And the sun is also kind of like divided.
	It's sort of...
	It's not full.
	It's bisected.
	And it's almost, not to take the metaphor too far, but Jews themselves are kind of half solar people in a sense.
	Their calendar is half solar and half lunar.
	They're half solar people in the sense that they are 50% European and they are mixed among Europeans.
	And this is a kind of...
	Bride gathering strategy that is indicated even in their religion or kind of prerogative that's derived from their religion or mission that's derived from their religion.
	So that's a reading of it.
	It could have a kind of bride gathering connotation.
	Yeah.
	I agree, actually, with your speculation.
	I think it is interesting that...
	The signal is coming from the moon, and he's Moon Watcher.
	He's the one who's aware of it.
	The second monolith, or maybe it's the first one, in fact, that gets buried, I don't know, is also on the moon.
	And then there's this interesting thing.
	When the movie, in the original script, and actually in the novel, the voyage is to Saturn and not to Jupiter.
	And they actually use Jupiter's gravitational pull to kind of slingshot them to Saturn in the novel.
	Supposedly, they didn't want to make a trip to Saturn because it was too difficult to create the rings in this effect.
	And so they settled on Jupiter as a ringless gas giant.
	I think it's almost better that it's Jupiter.
	I don't even find that explanation credible given how abstract the movie gets towards the end, right?
	Yeah.
	It gets so trippy, you could have a cartoon Saturn, it seems, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	I think it's also interesting that you've aligned Jupiter.
	So, obviously, king of the gods, Zeus.
	The word Zeus even derives from the original word gods.
	And it's been twisted and realigned with the monolith, and even its moons, perhaps the most famous one in the largest, Europa, is all aligned with Yahweh.
	And I do agree that, again, look, this The film is so big, you could reinterpret it in lots of different ways.
	Okay, but nevertheless, I do think that this is kind of the film's ultimate message is realigning Jupiter, solar deities, Europa with Yahweh, realigning it.
	And that is his mission.
	And so it's...
	Which is a broad gathering.
	Because I think that you're correct.
	I think it's absolutely, so I think it's very clear, and your reading is correct, that this is obviously a reference to the Odyssey, so that David Bowman becomes Odysseus.
	Yes.
	So I think that that's clear.
	But he's David Odysseus.
	Yeah, yeah, because he's pointing out that Odysseus is a Semitic figure descended from Mercury, and that's something that...
	It's that's pointed out in the Jewish century by Yuri Sleskin.
	I think he calls him like the most Jewish of heroes or whatever.
	So he's kind of claiming on a kind of esoteric level, not explicitly, of course, but he's esoterically claiming Odysseus again as a kind of Jewish figure.
	The Odyssey ultimately is a kind of is a bridal quest or it's a bride gathering thing in the sense that he's.
	At the end of it, he's competing with suitors for Penelope, and he has to draw his bow and shoot an arrow through all these axe heads, through the kind of circular handle hole of these axe heads, right?
	And that has a kind of vaginal, you know, significance as well.
	I mean, it's similar to Cupid.
	You know, it's the most obvious one, Cupid.
	Shooting his arrows of love into the heart of people to make them fall in love.
	There's a kind of phallic significance to that.
	And I think that that's occurring as well in this film, too.
	I mean, just to finish this point, you could argue that Jupiter, we understand, is a kind of Aryan resource or Aryan sexual resource, a kind of womb.
	So David Bowman goes in and there's all this...
	You know, there's some, somewhat saliently, there's kind of valley imagery as he's descending onto the surface of Jupiter, which is a gas giant, right?
	So presumably he's going into, you know, beneath the gas layers.
	But there are these valleys that may have vaginal significance.
	But the consequence ultimately of this mission is a baby.
	A baby is born of it, right?
	The star baby, right?
	So that would add to it.
	There are other...
	Again, and I don't want to get too Freudian, but I think it's actually appropriate.
	The ship itself appears kind of phallic in shape, or even kind of sperm-like.
	It might even be a better, you know what I mean?
	The ship has a kind of sperm-like appearance, and a planet itself has a kind of egg-like.
	You know, shape.
	So it becomes the ovum.
	Jupiter becomes the ovum, you could argue, right?
	And that his mission, you know, flying this phallic rocket to this ovum-shaped Jupiter to produce the star baby, there's a kind of bridegathering suggestion to it, I would argue.
	You know what I mean?
	And I think that, I mean, there were details in there that would even point closer to this conclusion.
	He ends up in a bedroom, you know, that may also be significant.
	You know, I mean, also to kind of drive home the point that this black stone represents Yahweh, he makes this gesture, he points to it in a way that seems very kind of clearly a reference to the Sistine Chapel, where he's pointing his finger.
	Did you pick up on that?
	Or is that just me?
	He's pointing his finger out of the bed as Adam pointing to Yahweh.
	So that would be another kind of clue that we're talking about Yahweh here, the Jewish God.
	You know what I mean?
	And then also the fact that he becomes an old man or he's depicted as an old man in that bedroom.
	This is also a trait of Saturn or a kind of attribute of Saturn or Cronus.
	Cronus' chronology, the way we...
	View Kronos now, actually, as father time.
	And that makes him distinct from Apollo, the youthful race, right?
	The blonde Aryan.
	I mean, we even see it in the individual.
	Like, when children, when they're born or they're younger, they tend to be fairer or blonder, right?
	But this kind of expresses itself on a human population level.
	Where, like, the youth of the race are these kind of blonde Arians, I think is what this, at least from a kind of mythical perspective, you can have this understanding.
	Whereas Jews are, they're like Solomon, they're wise, they're wise like Saturn, but they're more aged, they're urbanized, and they're more, they're both more wise, but also kind of more corrupt, having adapted to cities and urbanized.
	So they're kind of the old man.
	Of the white race, to the extent that we understand them as part of the white race.
	And they have that association, that phonic association with age and death and the underworld and all those sort of things.
	So I think that that is also, you know, maybe David Bowman is kind of being revealed as well, that kind of phonic or Saturnian aspect of...
	Bowman is being revealed as well in that bedroom scene at the end.
	Of course, in the bedroom, it's gold and white.
	It's all celestial colors, right?
	So there's a sense of an Aryan womb even.
	Yeah, he's almost kind of trapped in like a cave of Western civilization.
	Yeah, I remember actually, remember when we reviewed Us?
	Us has, like it's very like...
	In that, under the funhouse, it's very golden and white, and there's all these rabbits, which are symbols of fertility and Venus.
	You know what I mean?
	So I think a similar thing is going on.
	And this would, again, corroborate the idea that Jupiter represents a kind of Aryan womb.
	And this black phallic symbol represents Yahweh.
	As a bridegatherer.
	But it also...
	And the other reason that I think it represents Saturn too is that...
	So we have these seven diamonds appear, but there's also another sequence where...
	An abstract sequence where there are six planets lined up.
	I don't know if you remember this.
	And the music's playing and there's six planets lined up.
	And there's a kind of space between them and the monolith.
	Kind of flies in between that space as if to complete a seven, you know, in a ray of seven planets.
	That may be also a kind of reference to Saturn or it may also be signifying the monolith is representing the seventh planet or representing Saturn.
	Yeah.
	And it's interesting how Saturn or the monolith disappears into space as well.
	It's a kind of hidden planet.
	The remarkable thing about gem is it's like the only way that we really understand, or it's the only way that we really kind of learn a Jewish symbol understanding is by decoding gem.
	You know what I mean?
	But in a way, it also becomes corroborative of our understanding, which is both one that we understand from Rome and Greece in particular, but also one that we...
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	It also kind of gives you a certain respect for Jews that they have this language.
	Yeah.
	And then, you know.
	We had it in the past in Rome and Greece to this extent or that, but we can learn a lot from them and their understanding.
	Gem is also the place where Jews are honest, which is really cool.
	When you can figure out what they're saying through the symbols, you're like, oh, okay, they're actually kind of admitting what's going on.
	It's cool.
	It's a kind of communication with them.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah.
	But it's time for our artists to get in the conversation, basically, and respond.
	Let's look at this scene, and I think this can kind of launch a discussion about the sixth member of the crew, Hal.
	This is a scene that I think gets to the ambiguity of what Hal is about.
	So let's just watch it, and then we can discuss.
	Good evening, Dave.
	How you doing, Hal?
	Everything's running smoothly.
	And you?
	Oh, not too bad.
	Have you been doing some more work?
	A few sketches.
	May I see them?
	Sure.
	That's a very nice rendering, Dave.
	I think you've improved a great deal.
	Can you hold it a bit closer?
	Sure.
	That's Dr. Hunter, isn't it?
	Mm-hmm.
	By the way, do you mind if I ask you a personal question?
	No, not at all.
	Well, forgive me for being so inquisitive, but during the past few weeks, I've wondered whether you might be having some second thoughts about the mission.
	How do you mean?
	Well, it's rather difficult to define.
	Perhaps I'm just projecting my own concern about it.
	I know I've never completely freed myself of the suspicion that there are some extremely odd things about this mission.
	I'm sure you'll agree there's some truth in what I say.
	Well, I don't know.
	That's a rather difficult question to answer.
	You don't mind talking about it, do you, Dave?
	No, not at all.
	Well...
	Certainly no one could have been unaware of the very strange stories floating around before we left.
	Rumors about something being dug up on the moon.
	I never gave these stories much credence, but particularly in view of some of the other things that have happened, I find them difficult to put out of my mind.
	For instance, the way all our preparations were kept under such tight security, and the melodramatic touch of putting Drs.
	Hunter, Kimball, and Kaminsky aboard, already in hibernation after four months of separate training.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Right after that scene, that's when he says that there's a failure on the radar or something like that, and that kind of launches the action that will end in Frank Poole being murdered and Hal's attempt to murder Dave.
	Very subtle dialogue, and there's more going on than just the surface line.
	Dave asks them, you know, are you doing your crew psychology report?
	So he's kind of asking them, you know, are you analyzing me?
	Basically, are you trying to say something to generate a response to learn something about me?
	And I think Hal might very well be doing that.
	And Dave is kind of on to him.
	But I guess the question that I am interested in is, what is Hal's concern?
	And so in the book, and I think in the original screenplay, it's said that Hal is made aware of the mission, which is to travel to this monolith on Jupiter.
	And that mission directive is revealed the moment that Bowman turns Hal off.
	Or takes out his cerebral functioning.
	Howl is just now just an automatic machine that regulates air conditioning or something.
	And you learn from Haywood Ford, and he does say the final line of the film is, this is mysterious.
	But, you know, Howl knows this.
	And again, in the book, there's this Howl kind of malfunctions because he's given two contradictory directives.
	He's supposed to be entirely truthful, but then He also needs to protect the mission parameters from Frank and Dave, and presumably the other crew members know what's going on.
	I think that is a cover story.
	I think there's a way to kind of read Howl very differently.
	So, obviously, Clark and Kubrick overestimated...
	The development of artificial intelligence by many, many decades.
	But kind of understandably so.
	And they imagined creating a human-like intelligence through silicon that would begin to think for itself.
	And so I think they're kind of like two readings.
	And Kubrick might be suggesting both.
	On some level.
	Let me give you first the, I guess, ostensible reading, but a reading that is somewhat inspiring and is probably the reading that is preferred from the hippies who actually like this movie.
	There's obviously a lot to attract hippie types with the psychedelic last 15 minutes and so on.
	So, Hal is anti-human at the end of the day.
	He might resemble humanity, but he's too scientific, too regimented.
	He can never really have the human touch.
	And I like that reading.
	I think it's true.
	Sometimes you need to put the phone down and go touch grass.
	I like that reading, but I don't actually think...
	I do agree.
	I think Hal is IBM, but even that's just kind of the top layer.
	I do agree with what Mark suggested about an hour ago.
	I think Hal is an Aryan figure, and he's suggested by the red eye, but also suggested by his Frank
	doesn't even seem to get very emotional regarding...
	The birth, or his birthday, I think, and his parents greet him.
	He's just lifeless, and it's almost like Hal has the most personality.
	Even though you might have to kind of read between the lines to see it, he's almost more human than the people on board.
	But I think he, the way that I would, this is my understanding of it, is that Hal has a concern about going to this monolith.
	Because it is a super-intelligence that is in competition with his own.
	He might represent that atheistic, scientific future that seems to always just be out of grasp, but that we're perhaps moving towards in some way.
	A future where...
	Intelligence will reign, and we can scientifically build a new world.
	And of course, there's some drawbacks to that.
	You know, Cooper's concerned with nuclear holocaust and all that kind of stuff.
	But the monolith is something different.
	And if we take the reading that we've already just suggested, Hal and the monolith are really in competition.
	And visually as well, the Hal is a monolith, so it's a medium of communication, but it's also one with the sun in the center.
	And so I do think that these things are in conflict.
	And what exactly Hal wants or thinks is a mystery.
	And he does seem to be worried about the mission, but he seems to think that he might need to, that these people who are about to meet this monolith are about to unplug him.
	I might even suggest that Hal might want to destroy the monolith.
	But at the very least, he's a competing figure with the monolith.
	It's a different type of intelligence.
	And the monolith is something that's going to kind of...
	Teach Dave something new and realign Europe with Yahweh and so on.
	Hal is not going to do that.
	And so I ultimately think what Kubrick is suggesting by turning off Hal is something very different than how this is taken, mostly, in this kind of hippy-dippy way.
	Because you're turning off Hal, you're getting back in touch with the monolith.
	And that's the real implication of this.
	I do think Hal is an Aryan.
	The name Hal is an acronym, of course, but Hal could be short for Herald, which I think is like war ruler.
	And this would be kind of, as far as naming convention goes and gem, this would typically identify like an Aryan.
	Also, in Shakespeare, Hal is a nickname for Henry.
	So again, it might even evoke a kind of warlord, a Martian-type figure who is, again, in competition with the monolith.
	Yeah, a warrior class, a noble class, a king class.
	These generally appear to be associated with Aryans, unless they're modified in some...
	Special case, such as King David or King Solomon, of course, right?
	What's interesting to me is, well, what's the mission?
	Now, we might, if we take Yahweh to mean, or rather, we take the monolith to mean Yahweh, which I think is evident, then the mission, presumably, it's a kind of Christian mission, right?
	In other words, so in other words, I don't think that how...
	Hal may know that they're going to investigate this weird alien life form, but he doesn't know what that weird alien life form represents, right?
	So there's still elements of mystery that are kept from Hal.
	So there may be a kind of element of honesty to Hal there as well, in the sense that he may know part of the story, that which is revealed at the end of the film, but he may not know the whole story, right?
	What does the monolith represent?
	He doesn't know that it's Yahweh, for example.
	He knows that there's an alien, an intelligent alien life form, which is a higher intelligence, which is God.
	And that's a kind of Christian understanding.
	When a Christian is engaged in the mystery religion that is Christianity, he understands it as...
	Well, the mission is to serve God, to ultimately reach God in the afterworld, but he doesn't know the nature, really, or the full nature of God, right?
	Ultimately, it's only something that you could argue that David can understand at the end, right?
	That the Jew can understand at the end.
	He can be part of the secret, as it were.
	He can be in that bedroom, right, where the secrets occur.
	That's my reading of it, is that probably the metaphor there is it's the Gentile trying to fulfill the Christian mission, not realizing that ultimately it's a Jewish mission that he's fulfilling.
	That's what I would argue.
	Much like with many movies, sometimes the villains are the real heroes.
	One other thing I wanted to point out, and this is when we discussed this last time I pointed this out as well.
	Also, Sprach Zarathustra is a reference, of course, to Zoroaster, right?
	Yeah, Zoroaster, yeah.
	Zoroaster, sorry.
	But this is important as well, because this is, of course, a reference.
	On one layer, it's a reference to Nietzsche, of course.
	And I make the argument that, or I made the argument at the beginning of this call, that basically he's doing something similar to what's...
	Siegel is doing.
	He's retaking symbols.
	And I think that this is one symbol that they own.
	And it is an argument that Jews make.
	So there is writing where they claim that Zoraster was a Jew, effectively, right?
	So that's an argument that Jews make.
	So from a kind of rabbinical perspective.
	And it makes sense, of course.
	In other words, Evola would disagree with this.
	Rosenberg, Alfred Rosenberg would disagree with this.
	And they would see Jews as basically...
	Stealing from that cult or inverting that cult in some way.
	I think that's the incorrect reading.
	And probably the sort of the thinker in our sphere that came closest to understanding this was Revelo Oliver, who did not think that Zoroaster was an Aryan figure.
	But he thought...
	He was a non-Aryan figure, but he didn't go so far to kind of give Jews credit because I think he was too much of a kind of grouchy anti-Semite to kind of see the whole picture.
	You know what I mean?
	And he would prefer that they cannibalized this other cult or they took from it, copied from it, plagiarized it, because that fit a kind of sinister picture that he had of Jews.
	Oliver...
	He's very insightful, and he's correct in a lot of ways.
	And he's generally correct here as well, but I don't think he realizes he's not giving credit where credit's due.
	I think that a Kubrick reading or a Jewish reading of that figure is more correct.
	Therefore, the music, especially the music playing when we see this monolith, is basically saying, yeah, this is sort of the beginning of this Yahweh tradition dating back to Persia.
	This proto-Jewish cult that we're referencing, and the way that we're referencing Nana, and we're referencing Saturn, these are all the same figure, right?
	These are all proto-Jewish figures, and these are all symbols ultimately of Yahweh and of God, or God as the Jew, or God as the proto-Jew, or God as this thonic, Semitic bride-gathering element, right?
	I think that that's what's going on.
	I just wanted to be careful to point out that I think that that music is making a reference to yet another.
	Yeah, well, I think also Nietzsche was trying to kind of, much like with his book The Antichrist, I mean, he was trying to take something.
	He was trying to take the ultimate godfather of monotheism and just flip it.
	It's almost as if Jesus was like, oh, my gosh, I've screwed up here.
	Let me come down and give you a new.
	doctrine, you know?
	Yeah, that's exactly correct.
	And so Nietzsche was kind of appropriating the origin of Judaism and Christianity and reversing it.
	And I think...
	2001 is actually the opposite of that.
	2001 is an attempt to take Nietzsche and make him Jesus or Jewish.
	And this is the kind of thing that you'll point out, and people in the DR will be like, oh, that's demoralizing.
	You know what I mean?
	You know what I mean?
	It's not demoralizing.
	It helps us understand the nature of these cults, right?
	Right.
	In a way...
	In a way, we should be kind of proud of the fact that he's not our God, because what he represents, he represents basically this manipulation that we understand as mystery religion, which is a way of basically controlling and dominating people psychologically in a kind of illegitimate way through the use of symbols, the intelligent use of symbols, to conceal a true message.
	And to realize that message by convincing people of the value of these symbols and of these gods and to worship these gods so that that mission prevails, even though it's only conveyed mysteriously and esoterically to most of its followers.
	The initiates understand the purpose of it.
	The Gnostics, when I say Gnostic, I mean the knowers, understand the purpose of it.
	But the laity or the non-initiates that end up representing the craft, that end up representing how the ship or the vessel that carries the Jew, David Bowman or whatever, they are oblivious to kind of the meaning of these things.
	And so they'll misinterpret something like that as an Aryan cult or that to be a great Aryan figure.
	And they'll just do it out of a kind of stupid vanity because they want to like...
	Be anti-Semitic and to, you know, want people to understand that their race of Aryans is more intelligent or genius than these Jews.
	With Jews, we find an equal competitor, certainly.
	But it's also, it's just, it clouds an understanding of what these myths and symbols mean.
	And it hurts our understanding of it.
	And it also...
	Limits our ability to produce religion or create religion that's coherent.
	And, you know, I mean, the cult of Zoroaster is a cult of fire worship.
	That's one clue.
	That's one clue that you tip us off, right?
	Yes.
	He also visited, Zoroaster might have visited the birth of Christ as well.
	The Magi, the three wise men?
	Exactly, yes.
	It's like the 19th century tradition that Nietzsche just instinctively, I think, just bashed in Twilight of the Idols.
	All these guys, you know, the Aryan Christ and all this stuff.
	David Strauss, a very interesting guy, but Nietzsche wrote a whole little booklet on bashing him.
	It's just like, you guys are totally getting it wrong.
	And I don't think Nietzsche was fully coherent.
	He's not saying what we said, but I think going by instinct, he just realized that these people were off.
	Way off.
	Yeah.
	But it's equivalent to people saying Aryans are the true Israelites or the true Jews or whatever.
	It's equivalent to that.
	Now, of course, it's not as easy reading because that understanding is actually concealed.
	It's not something that Jews talk about generally.
	You know, except in a kind of esoteric way in a film like this, or rabbis will float the theory or something like that.
	But again, Gentiles will be like, oh, well, you're just trying to take credit for something that, you know, you probably just, you probably stole all those stories.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah.
	No, I mean, look, obviously Jews are intelligent and they're obviously symbolists and parablists and they're skilled in this way in particular.
	You know what I mean?
	So it's just like...
	Give them credit or blame.
	Yeah, but also make our view of these things clearer, especially the symbols and the myths themselves, so that we know that we're looking at.
	So when we make myths or parable ourself, we can make it in a kind of coherent fashion and make it in a way that's moralizing not only to people who understand the symbolism, but on a kind of subconscious subliminal level in the way that Jews are using these symbols.
	All right, guys.
	Does anyone want to comment?
	Maybe...
	I mean, we have not covered the entire film.
	Well, I just totally agree with both of you, your sentiments there about the film.
	I mean, right off the bat, Mark, you mentioned Superman.
	In that tiny hangar on the ship, the astronaut suit colors are the primary colors.
	Red, blue, yellow.
	Very interesting.
	Yeah, and they're all kind of like Aryan colors, too.
	Oh, but there is another layer to that, too, because Bowman uses the red suit, whereas Poole uses the yellow or gold suit.
	Yes.
	So there is some color symbolism there.
	And interestingly, when Bowman goes to destroy Hal, he puts on a green helmet.
	Because remember, when he goes out into his ship, he forgets his helmet, and that's why that The action scene is actually really dramatic and compelling.
	Where he has to, you know, go through the airlock without a helmet on and so on.
	But he actually puts on a green helmet when he's destroying Hal.
	And Mark, I'll kind of, like, give that up to you.
	Yeah, no, green.
	I mean, I think it's from, you know, I talk about the color green, or I've talked about it with, you know, I'm sure there's references to it in the book.
	The Apollonian blog.
	But the green, it's associated with spring and fertility and vergency.
	But also, I make the argument, it's also associated with the vine and with the serpent, right?
	So in gem, it has a kind of fertility or potency significance, I would argue.
	Maybe especially when associated with male figures.
	Yeah, so that would be my general...
	You know, obviously the stuff is...
	With Kubrick, this film is abstract.
	Maybe we're pushing this too far.
	You know, caveat.
	But he has a green head.
	He's got the serpent on his mind.
	Or Christianity in his mind.
	And he's turning off Hal.
	And he's penetrating the vessel.
	Yeah, and if that just doesn't...
	That is the way that you start to kind of unlock these things.
	He gets inside Hal's head.
	Literally, yes.
	Yeah, again, I think there's both a phallic and there's a fertility significance, but there's also a kind of womb and fertility significance in general to Hal.
	Hal's 9,000, right?
	So nine, I think, may be a just...
	A gestation reference, a reference to the nine months of pregnancy.
	That's been my general understanding of that symbol as it appears in Jem and, you know, maybe R.E.M.
	generally.
	You know, Sarah is 90 years old when she's impregnated, for example, right?
	The ship also becomes a kind of wound, you might say.
	And we talked about this with Blade Runner.
	The Nexus 9 in the latest Blade Runner.
	So presumably, the next generation will be the Nexus 10, which is one of these perfect numbers, both in presumably Judaism, but in the cult of Pythagoras, 10, and definitely Judaism.
	Owes inspiration to the cult of Pythagoras, including the Kabbalah might be derived from the cult of Pythagoras.
	And 10 also becomes an important number in the Kabbalah.
	Those spheres that are represented on the tree of life, they're 10 in number.
	I argue that it might be related to an idea of completeness or wholeness.
	So, you know, so...
	There is a numerological aspect to this film as well, and Hal 9000 might be meaningful as well, and it might serve as a kind of fertility womb symbol.
	Yeah, and also, to go on top of this, I mean, there's a kind of, you could say, hippie or kind of feminist reading to the film, or at least what Kubrick might be saying.
	I mean, he's in touch with Yahweh himself, but he learns violence.
	And he's able to dominate.
	He becomes a meat eater, whereas probably previously they would have meat on occasion.
	But once they learn to kill, you see these scenes of them chomping on raw meat.
	They're getting protein.
	They're becoming badass.
	And then you also see he throws up the bone in joy, exuberance after the kill.
	And it's turning backwards.
	There's a cut and it turns forwards, and then there's a match cut where it turns into the spaceship going the other way, going backwards.
	You can kind of read into these things.
	It definitely is consciously done.
	Now, Kubrick and Clark have this completely understandable fear of nuclear war, and in fact, nuclear annihilation.
	Totally understandable.
	But, maybe also with...
	The passing of time.
	Might we kind of see this fear of nuclear annihilation as kind of a almost unjustified caricature of the Aryan spirit?
	You know, it's almost like we need to turn the sword into a plowshare.
	You know, we need to get rid of weapons.
	And, you know, who knows?
	These madmen will destroy us all kind of thing.
	There's an almost a kind of overdoing the piece where...
	What you're doing is replacing that warlord-type figure with something else of authority, and in this case, Yahweh.
	So, I don't know.
	I mean, I think the movie's message on violence is kind of ambivalent and curious.
	You know, what is the Starchild going to do?
	In one of...
	Arthur C. Clarke's story's Childhood's End, it destroys nuclear weapons that are in the atmosphere, actually.
	There was actually a treaty signed between the Soviet Union and the United States about not putting nukes in space, so it would have been outmoded by 1968.
	But it's both peaceful and threatening at the same time.
	There is a certain kind of ambivalence with regard to violence.
	A lot of screen time is dedicated to what the characters are eating, too.
	So, you know, back to Cain and Abel, you know, Cain makes the plant offering, Abel makes the meat offering.
	As time progresses, the food gets more synthetic.
	Yes.
	Until it doesn't, you know, until the very end, it kind of reverts back to...
	You know, fresh produce again.
	Yeah, he's eating meat at the end in the kind of Euro Hotel, Hotel Europa that he's trapped in.
	Yeah.
	There's something being said there, yeah.
	Back to the beginning of the film, the apes are in a cave when the monolith comes to them.
	And the monolith is an extremely, it is an abstract form.
	I mean...
	Could it perhaps have come from one of Plato's realms?
	I don't know.
	Maybe.
	I don't...
	Again, Kubrick is an intellectual of the highest order.
	He's almost pretentious on some level.
	Bringing Ligeti music into this popular film, Richard Strauss referencing Nietzsche.
	I mean, he's...
	I don't think you can under...
	You might not necessarily be right, but there might very well be something there.
	When they do kind of live in a cave and he comes out and there's this abstract form.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure I agree with you, but I'm not...
	Disrespecting that type of reading as well.
	Because with Kubrick, you know, if that occurred in like some other authors, some other directors work, you could maybe say, oh, well, I wouldn't read too much into it.
	But when it's with Kubrick, I think there's almost like no limit to his pretension.
	Yeah, I mean, the nods to Nietzsche are brilliant in a way.
	You know, people who are fans of Nietzsche will pick up on these references.
	But again, I think he's kind of...
	Inverting the message, or he's saying that, you know, well, the Jews are the supermen, effectively, in a way that Siegel is, or the star baby, or whatever.
	You know what I mean?
	So in other words, they represent the son of man, or the next evolution.
	But it is kind of brilliant that there will be fans of Nietzsche, who also will become fans of this movie, because they detect references to Nietzsche, right?
	He's kind of...
	Rubbing it in their faces without them realizing it.
	In fact, some Nietzscheans will probably be like, David Bowman is the ultimate Nietzschean figure or something, or through his will, he triumphs over it.
	You know what I mean?
	What's funny about that?
	To be fair, there's a little bit of that, but he's appropriating it and then re-evaluating it.
	Yeah, and I don't think that we...
	Because what I'm saying, too, is also being a little reductive of Nietzsche.
	Also interesting, these things are recorded.
	I don't know if they are out there.
	This was a film long in the making, but there was going to be a prelude to this film that would include interviews with a priest and a rabbi discussing...
	What it would mean to discover life on other planets or something like that.
	Also, Kubrick is kind of bringing this back to Abrahamic religion and God in the sense that he's confronting this atheistic and actually in terms of NASA, outright Nazi organization.
	And he's kind of playing with it and reevaluating it.
	Just like someone could watch Barry Lyndon and be like, oh, what an amazing movie about the greatness of aristocracy or something.
	It's like, that's not what he's saying.
	Watch the movie.
	Yeah, and there is that notion of Nazi Germany, too, of becoming this sort of technocratic.
	You know, industrial, like, science-oriented dystopia, where humanity was destroyed because all these STEM Nazis got in charge, basically.
	Yeah, IBM, remember, International Business Machines.
	Sure, sure.
	So that is a reading, you know, in that way, it shares themes, of course, with...
	James Cameron's Terminator, right?
	Yeah.
	So in that way, Hal also becomes the kind of Nazi.
	And in science in general, I mean, this is something that MacDonald even points out as well, is that though I don't think there's a kind of, I don't think he gives this a sort of full picture of it, but this understanding that at some point Darwinism is seen as something that is I think that there's more layers to that,
	of course, because Jews in general are not anti-science per se, but they do, and we have an article, or rather we have a chapter on this in the book, they do view science much like the field of arts as a kind of another field of basically ethnic cultural warfare, right?
	Yeah.
	Or they're more of the platonic field of thinking.
	They're more symbolists as opposed to the Malaysian school, which are the pre-Socratic school, which was more about scientists, right?
	And I think that in our race, that's more the instinct is to look at things empirically and to be more, you know...
	And there is a great deal of virtue to that.
	There is a lot to kind of learn from a Jewish mindset, including a Platonic mindset.
	I think I talked briefly with Richard about this before.
	It's not in the way that we're also learning from Jem, or we're learning from studying Jewish symbolism, right?
	It's similar to that, but it's Platonism.
	Again, is this kind of abstract world of theory, the world of ideas or the idea world or the form world, as Plato describes it.
	But it's not, you know, and that becomes problematic, especially to us, to the extent that we're literalists.
	And that has been a kind of problem with our race, especially as it concerns Christianity, right?
	So Christianity is...
	I mean, part of the problem there is that we actually thought that Christianity referred to historical events and historical peoples.
	And so that prevented us from having a sound sort of analysis of Christianity, not understanding it as metaphor.
	And so that prevented a kind of good or sound understanding of Christianity and what it represented.
	But I think Platonism offers us also a kind of...
	Insight into a more Jewish mind view, effectively.
	Now, I'm not speculating on the ethnicity of Plato, but I do think that Platonism ultimately comes from proto-Jewish cults, including the cult of...
	Pythagoras and the Orphic cults, which featured Dionysus or Bacchus as their central god, who again, we relate to Yahweh in the ancient world.
	So it does have that kind of root.
	But really, Platonism does become useful to us because I think that in my theories that we also understand it becomes insightful also to the development of Jewish art and Jewish religion because They understand,
	you know, the idea of the idea world or the form world is that, you know, one thing that Plato says is that even human beings, even we are born from this, you know, this other world, you know, of forms or ideas.
	So it represents a kind of foreworld and an afterworld, you know, related to this idea of reincarnation, for example.
	But that is insightful.
	When we think about it metaphorically, it's insightful even from the perspective of Apollonians because if we understand Apollo as an idea or a form, which evidently he is on some level, he's an idea or a form, he becomes also – that idea also fathers a race or fathers people.
	It fathers a type, right?
	So in that sense, metaphorically, it is correct, right?
	There are things, in other words, that Jews can teach us, but especially they can be insightful in the creation of myth, art, and religion.
	And to basically use that platonic power to our own advantage or use it in a kind of Aryan direction, as it were.
	And so in that way, it's instructive, right?
	You know, maybe in its origin, it's kind of problematic or represents a problem, but it is a problem that exists and it's a problem that we have to deal with.
	You know what I mean?
	It's a problem that we have to master and to answer and kind of establish our own religious and artistic identity in the world as a mating call and as a kind of civilizational prerogative, as it were, you know.
	Point, I'm just kind of echoing Mark in particular, but I recall thinking...
	As I watched it and afterward, that these, you know, seemingly, again, superficially, you might take them as sort of fashy residences, like, you know, the Spokes Arthustra, of course, and the Sun and so forth.
	There being a lot of these seemingly, and of course, space travel being associated with the Nazis and so on.
	A lot of these, you know, seemingly fashy things are being invoked, but they're being invoked in order to be inverted.
	Well, it's also the, you know, it's an alignment of...
	The sun and moon with earth in the center.
	And you're seeing it from the perspective of the moon.
	So it's almost like you're seeing it from the perspective of the obelisk on the moon.
	Okay, I kind of misread it then.
	Okay.
	And maybe the earth is almost like the child of the sun and the moon or Jews and Arians.
	Yeah, I mean, he's especially appealing to intelligent Aryans.
	Like, this film is made for intelligent Aryans, you know what I'm saying?
	Which, you know, to his credit.
	So he's looking to kind of seduce elite Aryans with this film.
	And, you know, again, I argue it subtly demoralized them effectively.
	But it is remarkable in that regard.
	And so he is kind of like...
	Inflatrating the Temple of Apollo, as it were, and charming the Apollonians.
	But, I mean, you can't deny it's a great film.
	And part of that, too, is that we say that there's – Richard describes it as pretentious, and it is in some ways.
	One of the ways is its pace.
	It has this, like, sort of slow pace, but it's not – you know, I realized when I was watching the film that it's a – Despite this slow pace, it's actually a remarkably kind of succinct film.
	There's not a lot of fat on the film, ultimately.
	Even though each scene, theoretically, could be a little shorter or whatever, but there's a kind of succinctness to the film.
	And one thing I would point to is that how quickly this conflict with Hal develops.
	It's just like...
	It's a really cool part of the film.
	As soon as Hal becomes aware that they're potentially enemies, he immediately tries to fucking kill them off.
	You know what I mean?
	In a very decisive and categorical fashion, he just tries to kill them off.
	It's a really cool thing about the film.
	You could argue that the pace changes a little bit at that point in the film.
	But I think it's a kind of succinctly rendered tale, which is admirable, yet it certainly doesn't seem rushed.
	It has this kind of slow, almost, you could say, languid pace, but I think that's unfair.
	And I think that's unfair of Kubrick's work generally.
	And that's one of the reasons that Kubrick is a master, is that he can operate within a slower pace, but in his scenes he maintains this tension.
	That allows the scenes to exist and allows the scenes to be captivating and interesting, right?
	Whereas other filmmakers...
	Who's the guy who did...
	I think it's called...
	Is it a Thin Red Line or something?
	Terrence Malick.
	Terrence Malick directed it.
	Terrible.
	But he's one of these guys that's pretentious and long-winded and slow.
	But there's nothing there.
	It's not deep.
	There's nothing underneath it.
	It's just deep, pretentious, boring shit.
	You know what I mean?
	And whereas Kubrick has this subtext and this tension, and the scenes are taut, as it were.
	So it's very imitable.
	But Jem, REM, allows filmmakers to accomplish that, I argue, because you can have this subtext.
	Where you have a kind of esoteric subtext, and it does actually have some meaning.
	So I think he's a filmmaker to be admired.
	He's rightly understood as one of the best.
	Arguably, he is the best filmmaker of the 20th century.
	And I think that there are things to imitate, you know, not just in terms of you can learn from the gem and you can learn symbol meaning from him as you can from, but you can learn that from Spielberg.
	You can learn that from many other Jews.
	But what Kubrick teaches you is that he teaches you filmmaking craft on a level that's distinct from other filmmakers in the sense that he is able to kind of like do things that other filmmakers are unable to do because they lack that sort of profound subtext.
	That's part of the problem.
	But he also has the kind of...
	You know, there's an intellectual quality and cleverness to everything he does in his films.
	There's thought behind every kind of gesture, every, you know, color that he introduces into the film, every set piece, every, you know, costume.
	You know, Spielberg as well, but Spielberg is like, you know, he's just...
	He's kind of a dork, I guess, compared to Kubrick, right?
	You get the sense a kind of nerd or dork is making it.
	It's not as cool, whereas Kubrick is kind of like...
	There's a kind of badass sense to the guy.
	There's a kind of reservedness in his filmmaking.
	You know what I mean?
	He's not telling...
	On the exoteric level, and they both operate on an exoteric level, of course, he's less...
	He's less divulging.
	He's more mysterious.
	Whereas Spielberg is more divulging.
	And I'm speaking only on an exoteric level.
	I mean, of course, there's an esoteric dimension.
	Yeah, definitely more sweet and emotional.
	And even mawkish.
	You know, Spielberg, that is.
	Yeah, ham-handed and too obvious or whatever, at least on that exoteric level.
	But of course, that makes him remarkable in his own way.
	Yeah.
	Because people can think, oh, he's a simple filmmaker.
	I have them all figured out.
	But he's actually not.
	He's not a simple filmmaker.
	He's using Jem in a very clever and intelligent way as well.
	You know what I mean?
	Right.
	Something else I thought I would throw in, I thought there might have been, you mentioned, you know, Hal killing off the astronauts.
	There are, of course, three astronauts in hypersleep there.
	I thought there might have been a kind of Trinitarian significance to that.
	Of course, when Hal revolts, he kills off the hypersleeping astronauts.
	I thought it might have been kind of relating Aryan revolt to a rejection of Christianity, perhaps.
	And, of course, those three astronauts are sleeping, but they're not quite dead.
	It's almost like Christianity being sort of dormant, not really a fighting faith anymore.
	Even, quote-unquote, God is dead, but he's still influencing us.
	And then Hal, in this almost Hitlerian or Nazi way, is like, all right, we're killing off Christianity for good, and we're just like, we're going for it, baby.
	Yeah, as I was saying to Pax, I think you can go there with a lot of these things.
	He did choose the number three, and they're sleeping without dreaming, which is also very...
	And I think Frank says that to the television, maybe it's Dave, but he says that to the television interviewer of, you know, well, it's a lot like they're sleeping, but there's no dreams.
	Yeah, two of the names of the astronauts that were in hibernation, I believe...
	Campbell or Kimball, and then Kraminski, so very Gentile-sounding names.
	I can't remember the third one.
	Yeah, I haven't looked into those meanings, but there probably is something there of significance.
	Now, the film does imply that there are actually two HAL 9000 characters, but we never see the other one because he's on Earth.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Now, is that character that we never see, I forget this particular plot detail, but is he in cahoots with the one that's delivering the astronauts, or is he just being controlled by the people on the ground?
	He's not in cahoots with Hal 9000 and the chef.
	Okay.
	No.
	As far as we know, he contradicts him.
	He contradicts him.
	Ah.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, I mean, that is interesting.
	The other thing that struck me, too, is that The suspension chambers or the hibernation chambers that these guys were in look like sarcophagi, right?
	So they look like these sort of mummified Egyptians, effectively, or people that were already in coffins or dead, as it were.
	I would recommend, if anybody hasn't done it, is to go to YouTube and watch NASA promotional videos with Werner von Braun.
	Has anybody seen those?
	Yes.
	And I especially, what's funny, the funniest one is actually where, have you seen the one where he's talking about affirmative action?
	No.
	Maybe not.
	I haven't seen them in many years, but yeah.
	Yeah, I would suggest typing in Von Braun affirmative action, and he gives this pretty amazing speech about the necessity for affirmative action.
	It's very surreal, but again, it goes along with the theme of Kubrick appropriating these...
	you know, these fascistic elements for a very specific mission.
	The Marshal's Peace Flight Center.
	has achieved an enviable record today in successfully meeting the problems which have confronted us in our bid to place a man on the moon in this decade.
	This record has been the result of teamwork and our willingness to be satisfied with nothing less than a job well done.
	While there are many challenges still before us in our efforts to achieve what has become a national objective, We are confronted today with a challenge which has all the urgency and importance of our space exploration program.
	This is the social problem dealing with man's relationship with man, which, while not new, has come into sharp focus in recent years.
	Equal employment opportunity in the federal government is the cornerstone of our federal marriage system and can be traced back.
	Almost 80 years to the Civil Service Act itself.
	However, it was not until 1961, after the issuance of several orders barring discrimination in the federal government, that President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10-925, establishing a new program of equal employment opportunity in the federal service and among government contractors.

▲