2001: A Space Odyssey – Esoteric Analysis

By: Jay The Stanley Kubrick film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was a visual and technical accomplishment, unparalleled at the time of its making. I recall watching it for the first time about 12 years ago in high school, and all that was apparent to me at the time was the concept of evolution towards an inevitable battle between man and machine.  I watched it again several years later, and noticed gnostic elements that James B. Jordan had alluded to. Having watched again recently, much more was apparent to me, and it's meaning is, in my analysis, Satanic. If you know about Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick's other films, it becomes clear why this is so. But to 2001.  In the first scene, we see an astronomical alignment, that, as I will seek to show, is ultimately of astrological import. Note that the sun is seen partially bright, and in the distance. And save yourself a lot of wasted time by avoiding the many youtube videos labelled "Kubrick" and "Illuminati," which are shoddy, unstudied nonsense.

The actual first few seconds of the film before this scene are all black – and from this we are to know that we are seeing the obelisk that will appear throughout the film. In other words, the all-black screen is the obelisk. We are in the dark – profane and ignorant of the “light.” This obelisk represents Lucifer, xenophobia, the mysterious, the unknown, technology.  The “illuminated” powers of the kosmos (fallen angels) have sent this black obelisk from heaven, where humanity is purportedly at the level of ape.  There also may be a double meaning here, where the audience, who had at the beginning been shown to be in the dark, is not presented as like apes – dumb, unenlightened apes.  This would show the disdain and hate for humanity those like Kubrick had (who was known to be a very nasty chap).

The film’s main theme, simply put, will be human evolution. This may sound innocuous to many readers, but this actually cloaks a deeper, darker agenda – an occult agenda where man “evolves” to become God. Not, mind you, in any kind of Christian sense of redemption from death and participation in immortality and Resurrection, but rather in a blasphemous evolution where man literally becomes a new god.

In the Dawn of Man scene, the arrival of the black obelisk provokes fear among the apes and we then see the sun rise on the obelisk from an interesting angle.

Pyramid without a capstone vantage point, with another astrological alignment

The meaning of the pyramid without its capstone is  that the “great work” of the secret societies and Freemasons is not yet complete. Here, the dark light is dawning on ape to raise him to man, in the great myth of evolution.  One monkey discovers technology (a bone) and uses it for a weapon to protect his tribe, killing anteaters, and overcome rival monkeys.  The other clan of apes lacks bones/weaponry, and loses. The fittest survive, we are told, in Darwinian fashion.  War, then, is necessary for “progress.”   

The monkey throws his bone into the air, and we fast forward millions of years into the future with man flying around in space in space ships. Man has progressively evolved to now defy gravity. We see ships and humans flitting and dancing about in space, no longer subject to the former laws that kept him earthbound.   We see people, however, using the bathroom – still bound by their humanness.  Man now has a moon base, to which a conglomeration of PhDs are in flight to solve a mysterious event that has arisen on Clavius – the moon base. Here, another monolith has been found giving off strange signals. This is reminiscent of the monolith that appeared in Seattle in 2001, as well as the bologna notion promoted by Freemason Buzz Aldrin that Mars’ “monolith” is a sign of intelligent life. Clarke and Kubrick both thought it was time to open people’s minds to the coming encounter with “alien life.”  Kubrick explains:

“I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don’t believe in any of Earth’s monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of God, once you accept the fact that there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, that each star is a life-giving sun and that there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in just the visible universe. Given a planet in a stable orbit, not too hot and not too cold, and given a few billion years of chance chemical reactions created by the interaction of a sun’s energy on the planet’s chemicals, it’s fairly certain that life in one form or another will eventually emerge. It’s reasonable to assume that there must be, in fact, countless billions of such planets where biological life has arisen, and the odds of some proportion of such life developing intelligence are high. Now, the sun is by no means an old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic age, so it seems likely that there are billions of planets in the universe not only where intelligent life is on a lower scale than man but other billions where it is approximately equal and others still where it is hundreds of thousands of millions of years in advance of us. When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made in a few millennia—less than a microsecond in the chronology of the universe—can you imagine the evolutionary development that much older life forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities—and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans.” (source)

So, like Richard Dawkins, God as conceived of in the Bible is silly, but alien life is reasonable.  Alien existence is “scientific,” whereas Christianity is a fable.  And this is reasonable and “scientific” because billions of years means “life” will most likely randomly spring from muck and lightning somewhere else out there.  This is nothing but a an absurd Gospel of its own.  As St. Paul explains in Romans 1, when men turn from the true God, they inevitably worship lies and fables, deifying creatures and creation, as we see here with Kubrick.

Back to the film. As Dr. Floyd approaches the monolith to touch it, we hear an increasingly loud, eerie humming of voices that gives the impression of the demonic.  As he touches it, the six astronauts hear a deafening, unending beep.

This beep, though is followed by the second astrological alignment, where we see more of the sun at the capstone of the pyramid:

More "light" given to man as he progresses to godhood

Conjunction of sun and moon is connected to conjunction of male and female in the so-called “vesica piscis,” wherein we are given more Masonic mumbo jumbo as supposedly progressing us toward godhood.  This is, of course, vanity and lies, as Scripture says in numerous places.  Here, a Mason with his purported wisdom gives a completely bogus interpretation of the meaning of the name of “Solomon,” based on a completely different language. He falsely claims the Temple was really the Temple of Sol and Amon. No, the name Solomon is a Hebrew word שְׁלֹמֹה – and has nothing to do with Egyptian deities “Sol” and “Amon,” especially since “Sol” is Latin. You can now laugh. He does, however, tell us the meaning of the vesica piscis in his worldview – that of sun and moon in sexual conjunction. Typical pagan sex magic, which will figure prominently in proving my thesis about Kubrick in regard to his last film Eyes Wide Shut, which, as everyone knows, ends with a occultic sex orgy.  

Again, back to the film. The next scene is the Jupiter mission, where man faces machine – the famous HAL 9000, where the oft-repeated lines of “open the pod bay door, Hal,” lay grounds for endless jokes and impersonations by 20 year-old pot heads. There’s not really much need to go into detail about this section, since it’s just about man overcoming A.I. “life” in the next step of evolutionary progress.  Jupiter/Jove is the last “god” we had to “conquer,” and now mankind will go “Bey0nd the Infinite.” Jupiter/Jove, however, is often (falsely) connected by these bogus occultists and even at times by ancient pagans, with the Jehovah of the Bible.  The God of the Bible, however, the Logos (John 1:1), made the universe and all that is in it. He is not some planetary ruler or demiurge, even though many pagans have associated God with Jupiter.  However, in the minds of these pagans, man is destined to go beyond this assumed local deity, and conquer the stars (not that I oppose space travel).

This is why, when Dave turns off Hal, a bizarre sequence begins. Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001 explains that at this point man enters the “Star Gate” to what appears to be the next dimension. In this aether, Dave sees himself age and still subject to many bodily conditions, such as using the bathroom, eating, sleeping, etc. You can see now where we are going. The “evil” deity of Bible, Jehovah, who created matter and the human body, must now be overcome and transcended. He bound man inside this “evil flesh” and man must now seek the “alien” presences/gods in the kosmos (symbolized by the monoliths) to raise him from his crude flesh to pure spirit.  In other words, we have rank and pure gnosticism. The ancient gnostics varied in their beliefs in many ways, but basically thought that an evil demiurge had imprisoned man in the flesh, while the good entity of spirit or nous (mind) is the goal of cyclical return man sought. One sees this basic Plato and the Greeks, as well as in the early Christian heretics, such as Marcion and Mani and his Manichaeans. The sequence of the “Victorian” Aether and the Star Gate is as follows:

Now there is an eye as a capstone atop the pyramid – it is man’s eye.  Arthur Clarke called the huge space baby at the end “Star Child.” The meaning is that man has come full circle, and now creates his own universe – he is now God. Existence is a never-ending succession of man’s ascent to godhood and then as a god-child, he creates a new universe and progresses and grows with it, in a blasphemous reversal of Genesis 1, where the seas are separated from the land, etc. So basically every possible heresy and pagan view you can imagine is all rolled into one film. This makes 2001: A Space Odyssey a total lie; probably as much a lie as the moon landing – and this  (though I’m unsure on this one).

However, in regard to Kubrick, one need only be aware of Eyes Wide Shut, which shows a more or less Satanic ceremonial orgy engaged in by wealthy masked attendees. I don’t recommend the film, but you get the idea from this video. Kubrick was, if we can gauge from his films, clearly a devotee of such paganism. There’s no need to extrapolate wild theories, it’s pretty obvious and in the open.

Further confirming this interpretation, Arthur C. Clarke says in plain language the film is propaganda to prepare us to accept the “inevitable coming” alien encounter (below in the 3 part interview).  No, Clarke was a fraud and this is just propaganda used to prop up the evolution myth, which is nothing but ancient gnostic. For all of their hatred of creation and Genesis, the great irony is that Genesis identifies these fraudsters for us:

 “1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” -Genesis 3.

It’s the lie of Satan, who promised man the ability, by nature, to replace the Creator and become God.

What was Arthur C. Clarke’s so-called Third Law? “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

15 Comments on 2001: A Space Odyssey – Esoteric Analysis

  1. Great review as usual. Haven’t seen 2001 in full in a long time.

    I’ve noticed the traditional “luciferian” formula of the atheistic type, generally goes like this.

    1.)Primitive man makes evolutionary leaps by virtue of his imagination.
    2.)Initially Man cannot distinguish between himself and outer nature.
    3.)Through his imagination, Man creates subject/object boundaries.
    4.)Man projects his own person-hood on the exterior world, creating god.
    5.)This projection at first helps unify society but then metastasizes into a psychological prison.
    6.)Man recognizes god to be merely his projection and “re-ingests” the projection into himself, realizing that he himself was God all along, thereby moving to the next stage in evolution.
    7.)In some cases this marks a break with the subject/object distinction, destroying the notion of ego itself, allowing man to be integrated into the pantheistic “all in one”.
    8.)This dialectical evolutionary process, is often symbolically represented with the union of male and female pairs.

    This is essentially identical to the typical gnostic formula, except in the atheistic version the process is purely material, whereas the primitive man of gnosticism is not an ape but a super-material Anthropos, whose essence became imprisoned in matter. The gnostic formula makes the biblical god the lowest emanation of a supremely transcendent impersonal source, where as the atheistic formula makes the biblical god a creation of the human psyche, which at its base is also impersonal. In either case the biblical god is presented as a tyrant to be overcome. In many ways the various differences between the two formulas is negligible.

    Veiled versions of this story frequently feature a character who represents this derogatory image of the biblical god. The character is often, in some sense, a creation of the protagonist, in keeping with the luciferian idea that god is a projection of the human mind. Often unaware of his innate superiority the protagonist will remain trapped in an artificial sub-creation of the “evil demiurge.” In the Matrix trilogy this part is filled by the Architect, who created the Matrix to imprison mankind but is himself a computer program, ultimately made by people.

    It could be that Hal9000 in 2001 is meant to be the Demiurge. Like the architect, he is a computer program made by man and like the architect he acts like a god, trapping the protagonist in an artificial world, restricting the human hero, all the while insisting it is for his own good. This is very much how modern gnostics perceive God. Other fictional examples abound such as The Truman Show, Blast From the Past, The Golden Compass and Prometheus Unbound. In each of those examples the hero unites with a female partner to overthrow the stand in for God. As you pointed out, this is represented in 2001 with the conjunction of the male sun and female moon.

    If the hero of 2001 “goes beyond Jupiter” after defeating Hal then this would seem to confirm the idea that Hal is, indeed, yet another stand in demiurge.

  2. I have multiple problems with this one, and I’d like to state them now:

    1.2001 and the bible are BOTH interpretive pieces of work, so it is impossible to claim that Kubrick was intending a satanic message without finding a lot of evidence to the contrary.

    2.The bible’s interpretive nature makes it so that your quoting of it is almost irrelevant. For example:

    “Then the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    Sorry, but there’s a problem with this: THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. He claimed that they can become like God, knowing good and evil, and that’s what happened. The Garden was intended to FAIL so that they could release from it, somewhat like being born. So claiming that 2001 is talking about satanic ideas is absolutely wrong, because the idea of knowing good and evil is called a conscience, it’s something that is really NEEDED for Christian ideals to work. Without right or wrong, it would fall apart.

    3.If you are saying that he is a Pagan or a Satanist, consider the fact that he HALTED PRODUCTION during the making of Full Metal Jacket because he was heartbroken when a Rabbit was accidentally killed by the crew that was moving materials. He was definitely not a Satanist, and the biggest proof of it is his films. Eyes Wide Shut is based after a story that contains the masked ball stuff in it. His symbolism was used intentionally with ambiguity, so that we can’t say for sure what it means. Going on stories about his life, he was AGAINST power and people with it, he wanted to be alone with the people he loved, his daughter left the family to join Scientology, he was a huge lover of animals, and much, much more. He wasn’t part of a grand conspiracy, and if he was, he definitely wasn’t the conductor, because his films, if anything are anything BUT positive messages about the Elite. If anything, films like A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, and Eyes Wide Shut are all trying to EXPOSE the elite of the world, not glorify them.

    • evan petelle // August 28, 2014 at 11:15 pm // Reply

      If you think that being saddened over the death of a rabbit is in any way turning from Satanism, you have not a true grasp on the ideals carried within the religion.

      • evan petelle // August 28, 2014 at 11:17 pm //

        However, I do not mean to claim Kubrick as an evil man. Simply, I wished to point out that a satanist can indeed retain a moral compass.

  3. Brian Fields // January 8, 2011 at 10:47 pm // Reply

    To Bassbait: There is no proof that Kubrick was against the Elite anymore than he was for it. Just because he may not have been a Satanist or Paganist or even religious altogether or that he showed a lot of EXPOSE in his movies doesn’t mean he was against anything. After all the Elite have all sorts of different people who differ in belief, and are so powerful they do not mind glorifying their cooked up occult prophetic psycho-pomp in plain sight when the majority of people are either not going to understand it or those that do which create new followers of the Elite. You bring up his daughter becoming a Scientologist, well that strikes some questions, doesn’t it? Now I know that at the end of the day it is his daughter’s decision and not his, but we all know Scientology is a creation of the Elite so what’s really going on here with that?

    I think Kubrick could have been one of the Elite, sure. Then again maybe not. There is so much mystery with the Elite we could never know.

    To Jay: Your analysis of the movie 2001 has much in common with the similar analysis that William Cooper had gave in his audible ‘Dawn of Man’ broadcast from his Mystery Babylon series. For those who have not heard it I recommend a comparison and see what you think. Good read and thank you.

  4. celestial elf // March 20, 2011 at 9:03 am // Reply

    Great Post thank you,
    thought you might enjoy my machinima film on Kubric’s Monolith

    Best Wishes ~

  5. I just don’t get it…you seem to make accusations that gnostics accept evil and thus get stuck in the dark-side of their nihilistic aims, their Jungian shade, and you criticize this among gnostics, saying that they are power-hungry at the expense of God, truth, justice, goodness, etc…

    But you don’t see that you have also done the same…you seem partial to a monastic static, top-heavy, top-down, God-god in which this same penchant of grand narratives for life, fate, and the cosmos (which can only be rivaled by the likes of August Comte) is carried over into some of the impossibly complicated “Rube Goldburg-esque” conspiracy theories you also tie in to your reviews (water fluoridation and the moon landing hoax for example). Not to say that liberals don’t have their own incorrect and inappropriate conspiracy theories because they do (9/11 conspiracy theories for example), but this is externalizing and ceding way too much power out and away from yourself (reification in other words) which has the irony of also giving you the power to make some of the intricate and powerful analyses you make in your film reviews (which I deeply appreciate, by the way, though I don’t always agree with all of your points as you can probably surmise with the points I am making here); but the cost of your power and acumen come at you making some of these reification fallacies that plague your works and judgements and having an overly fatalistic, teleological, and materialistic perspective, the very things you profess to be against in staking your heart and hopes on a heavenly redemption entirely divorced and beyond the horizon from this material, teleological, and fatalistic world.

    Your projected far-off heaven, then, seems to identically mirror this world which inescapably leads to the question: why do you want to transcend this realm so badly only to end up in the exact same one in heaven that you disparage and despise so much??? Makes no sense to me at all.

    You’ve made your own faustian bargain and plunged into your own dark side while you write well but also project your own fears and frustrations for doing so onto the gnostics to distract and keep you from realizing this truth. This is pretty badly hypocritical. Otherwise, I still very much enjoy reading your reviews and analyses, although at times it seems overly judgmental in its non-sequiturs and questionable affirmations to conspiracy theories. I consider this the best website by far I have ever seen in analyzing gnostic and mystic themes in media and culture.

  6. hi Jay. This is the first I’ve seen of your work and I like it very much. For awhile now I’ve looked at Kubrick related illuminati stuff as you say and I was never fully satisfied. This was the best I’ve seen thus far. Did you notice the Halo formed by direct filming of the sun rising above the monolith? I don’t know why but that struck me. Have you looked at the work of Chris Constantine? A.K.A. Gorilla199 on youtube? I think you would like his work and he always gives praise to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

  7. A lot of points you mentioned are spot on. I watched the film recently, out of curiosity and I have few ideas of my own. The first thing that got my attention was the giant iPhone looking black thing. I agree with your point concerning the idea of evolution (the ape scene) but then I thought that by introducing technology, humans become more “sophisticated” and “enlightened”. As many people would argue that Kubrick was “ahead of his time” I think it’s loads of bull. Many scientists have claimed that our technology has existed & been experimented on 30yrs ago or so and we have currently is not so ‘current’ per se. Therefore, this will suggest that Kubrick, working with elites, knew about the iPhone smartphones etc and put that into practice throughout the film. The question is, what does exist now within the elites which will reveal itself in 30yrs time or so? It’s a terrifying idea isn’t it as we have so far encountered so many problems with the latest technology in many aspects (sociological, economical etc).

    I’m not sure whether the “future” technology will prove to be more the decline of our humanity. We are becoming more and more dependent by it and some people, literally, can’t live without it. Which brings me to my main point in the film. As in the final scene the astronaut ages and next on his death bed we see ‘technology’ beside him. Thus even when he’s about to die, the technology is present with him ie until death.

    I think Kubrick was ridiculing the God idea in religions. Fooling people into thinking that the film revolves on the God perception. When it fact it wasn’t. He was merely introducing the technology being the only one thing humans can live by and can’t live without. That technology being their “god”. What many don’t understand, is the fact that one needs to free him/herself from this evil ie the technology which is increasingly becoming the best thing we know and value the most. I’m not suggesting to stop using phones & social media etc but we’ve got to be more self aware and self controlled. We have to control our desires. We are becoming slave.

    Kubrick was an evil bastard but he was also one twisted clever man who managed to put his true agenda hidden in films.

  8. Hi Jay,

    I really enjoy your website and your analysis of films. I believe you have been spot on in regards to some of your other reviews on the site and I have learned a great deal from you. However this being said, I feel you have totally overlooked huge portions of Stanely Kubrick’s 2001. Mainly due to huge assumptions of Kubricks character and that somehow the Christian bible is correct (your proof being?) and anyone who believes otherwise is an agent of evil. Kubrick may have not believed in the dogmatic religions of the world, (Satanism being one of those dogmatic religions) but he did believe in a higher force making him closer to agnostic then atheist. He did recognize the limits of rationalism as he commented on this openly in interview. He ultimately believed that man didn’t know the answer and God would be beyond his comprehension anyway. He still celebrated Christmas every year despite his scepticism, as his daughter mentions in interview.

    Kubrick was ultimately against the elite’s agenda and tried to help expose it over and over through his films. Most bluntly put in his final film “Eyes Wide Shut”. Just re-read that….Eyes Wide Shut, a reference to how the audience watches his films. He died the week prior to it’s release. The studio went ahead and removed over 30 minutes from the film without his permission. Kubrick made huge attempts to enlighten his audience to much larger issues through his work. Full Metal Jacket is another example at his attempt enlighten the audience to what is really going on, How American Soldiers are manipulated and don’t even know what they are fighting for, how hollywood assists in this, hence “mickey mouse” anthem as the final scene in the movie, and the homosexual nature of war.

    For those of you that call Kubrick an “Evil Bastard”, you have missed the point completely. And its not surprising coming from a man with a IQ of roughly 200. You do the world a complete disservice by mocking him as such. Ignorance, flat out ignorance.

    I would like to take a moment to educate you on the hard evidence and fact that if you take some time to research the bible, you will find it is a general plagiarism of much older texts. Such as the Sumerian book of creation “Enuma Elish” (dated 1,500 to 1,000 years before Christ and 2,000 years before the New Testament) among varies other texts. I’m sure an intellect like yourself will have no problem hashing out the rest of the general issues of the bible such as Jesus being a slop together of other pagan gods such as Dionysus, Attis, Mithra etc. And there being no evidence for his existence. I recommend reading the works of D.M. Murdock, she cites all her research on her site truthbeknown.com

  9. Looking forward to seeing a revision of this article. 🙂 Thank you!

  10. Glass ceiling. // April 8, 2016 at 6:37 pm // Reply

    Von Braun’s gravestone mentions Psalms 19:1: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament (vault or dome) sheweth his handywork.(KJV) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun.

5 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey – Esoteric Analysis « starsword
  2. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial – Esoteric Analysis | Jay's Analysis
  3. Esoteric Analysis of E.T.: The Extraterrestrial by Jay Dyer | evolve and ascend
  4. Hillsong Conference Space Odyssey – Illuminati in plain view | Coercion Code - "Dark Times are upon us"
  5. Una visita a Kubrick:The exhibition (III) | Estudio | Exposiciones

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: