MICE is a mnemonic acronym that stands for Money, Ideology, Compromise, and Ego. These are the four golden gateways that spies—professional or otherwise—use to enter into the world of their target and effect manipulation. Done masterfully, a spy can achieve more with one staged telephone conversation than ten Tom Cruise characters leaping over limousines on motorcycles or crashing through windows on upper floors of office buildings. A masterful spy can achieve manipulation remotely, invisibly, and leave no tracks. The target may never become aware of having been manipulated. 

The spying process begins with identifying the target’s area or areas of weakness. The strategy is then to link desired behaviors to weakness incentives. For example, a predatory lender obtains a list of names from a credit reporting agency, prospects that fit a certain profile with respect to borrowing pattern, debt level and payment history. This information is used to make tantalizing offers that benefit the lender more so than the credulous or troubled borrowers. The desired behavior that the lender seeks to achieve is the prospect’s agreement to borrow a substantial sum at a higher-than-normal rate of interest and under terms not ordinarily acceptable, including exorbitant front-end (advance) fees. The “weakness incentive” is the borrower’s need to make a financial recovery or desire for quick cash. 

It is interesting to see that the concept of MICE is largely unknown, or taboo, an open secret scarcely examined even in books that teach about strategies of war. As a result, MICE are commonly represented as being the motives of traitorous spies when the greater truth and significance is that MICE are the areas of weakness that anyone might use to exploit a target. This is crucial knowledge for everyone who wants to be a difficult target. Spies seek weaknesses such as: financial need or greed; religious, racial, or political bias; sexual desire or other physical need; and desire for recognition. When all four gateways can be leveraged the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. 

The movie, Breach (2006), inspired by “the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. intelligence history,” centers on character flaws of FBI agent Robert Philip Hanssen, a long-time KGB mole. The movie shows Hanssen displaying a high degree of weakness in all four MICE categories. Ironically—if it is indeed true that Hanssen volunteered his services to the Soviets “out of the blue”—those weaknesses appear to have been exploited by Hanssen himself, somewhat reminiscent of the schizoid Bob Arctor protagonist of Philip K. Dick’s science fiction story, A Scanner Darkly. The viewer of Breach is certainly encouraged to perceive Hanssen strictly as a self-victimizing perpetrator. But even if that is true, Hanssen, like Arctor, seems to have been little more than someone else’s means-to-an-end functionary. Ultimately both men were institutionalized. 

Why bother pondering covert intelligence gathering and MICE?—because the basic dynamics and same risk factors are present in every personal and business relationship.

For each mission there had to be two sets of film: one genuine, to be kept secret, and one staged for taxpayer consumption. In the course of our separate and ongoing research into the films of Stanley Kubrick, we saw compelling evidence for the argument that he was the filmmaker who created those staged images. In later films he seems to have supplied clues to his involvement in this clandestine project as well as clues to other knowledge he had gained about certain powers-that-be. In addition to items excavated by other researchers, PluribusOne™ has discovered what appears to be the coded disclosure of the name of the person in charge of the covert side of the Apollo missions. We are withholding that, pending further study toward confirmation.

Although NASA did go to the Moon and deploy men to explore its surface, it is possible that one Apollo mission was almost entirely hoaxed: Apollo 12. We spotted something in one of Kubrick’s films that may be a clue missed by others who have researched this matter. For now, we are withholding a description of that possible clue, except to say that it might indicate that Kubrick intended to leak a disclosure that, for all intents and purposes, there was no Apollo 12. If so, then the Apollo 12 mission that provably launched might not have left Earth orbit, in which case all en route and on-Moon activities, including photographic records, were faked. Other than already known bogus images, is there anything to support this speculation, any good circumstantial evidence?

• Shortly after lift-off the rocket was struck by lightning twice. All primary fuel cells were lost. Backup power was engaged and fuel cells allegedly restored, but when the spacecraft went into Earth orbit, ground control was unable to fully assess damages to mechanisms such as guidance and parachute systems. It was undeterminable whether the men could even be brought back alive. To attempt to proceed to the Moon would have been imprudent, to say the least.
• Alan Bean allegedly damaged the color video camera, such that it recorded nothing, and “misplaced” the shutter-timer that would have enabled taking a group photograph at the Surveyor 3 site. He also “forgot” to bring back most of the rolls of allegedly exposed film. Add to this the fact that images allegedly acquired from Apollo 12’s lunar orbit show no real evidence, only dots and marks that could have been doctored-in, as may be the case again with reimaging done via the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2009. Certainty remains elusive. Time will tell.

The idea that the term “military intelligence” is oxymoronic could not be further from the truth. Key leaders are well-versed in the art and science of keeping secrets. And, although neither NASA nor conspiracy theorists have mentioned it, filmmakers have their own agendas and are also equipped to play elaborate mind-games.

PluribusOne™, formulator of the NoetiTaoism™ philosophy, asserts that—as evidenced by our new science of Enhanced Human Perception™ and by fruits of the Noetitek™ system—Hume’s view was not correct; there is a self, but that self is an omni-self (we refer to as “Self”) and not person-centered. Source Energy Awareness (SEA), the One, is the only real Self, and it expresses its Being through the creation of Consciousness which, in turn, creates and expands Creation via an infinitude of seemingly separate human and nonhuman entities that appear to gather and share “personal” experiences and memories through the illusion of Time and the sensorial construct of Space. 

Consciousness is tripartite, as recognized by Socrates; as reflected in the Christian Trinity; and as grasped by Freudian psychology. In our conceptualizing, Consciousness is composed of and comprises the first three dimensions of Omniverse. Consciousness projects itself as an intertwined flow of Mind that is composed of an additional three dimensions—of Time. The human brain, with the further-added three dimensions of Space, is composed of three primary segments that refine and realize (make real) the projections of Consciousness. To the human being, it appears that we are acquiring and processing perceptions; the greater truth is that we are generating endless impressions and making “memories” in accordance with the intentions (or “will”) of Consciousness. 

If “normal” people, who falsely perceive themselves to be separate entities, do not know who they are, how can they know what they want? Typically, and not surprisingly, we do not know, because that which we (as projections of Self) desire is, in effect, who and what we are. We are what we want, and although it may not seem so, we want what we are. So, when you know who you are, you know what you want, and when you know what you want, you know who you are. All uncertainty involving personal identity is the result of not seeing the reality that there is no self apart from Self, no self but Self. The apparent separateness is a carefully and intentionally devised illusion, a useful masking. 

The big question relates to “the big who”: What does Self want? The answer is simple: Self wants it all. Self wants the good, the bad, the beautiful, the ugly, the happy, the sad, the ecstatic win, the unbearable loss, the darkness and the dawn, the blindness and the enlightenment. Such is the game of Life, the whole purpose for the creation of Omniverse. Mortal life in Omniverse offers permanent escape from the sum of all fears: the fear of the eternal state and quality of Selfhood—more precisely: the fear of the Self-knowledge that is knowable and known but better kept as a mystery, a shrouded taboo. 

So, what does a “self” need to know to make the most of Life within the Grand Illusion? When you know that your true nature is Self and that you want everything, and you know that “everything” is an experiencing, the only question to ask and answer is: What would I like to experience now? What excites me? The options are unlimited. The real problem is much like that of approaching a huge banquet table; you can eat anything—you can eat it all—but you cannot eat it all at once. Just choose, and “to thine own Self be true.”

Considered by historians to be one of the three most important Renaissance artists—we would argue for a lesser rank—Michelangelo (Buonarroti) was certainly outclassed by the other two: Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael (Raffaello Sanzi), on grounds of creative genius. We see Michelangelo’s high rank as mainly due to his beautiful statue, David, and to the Sistine Chapel ceiling, two large and imposing works borne forth on broad shoulders of religious pride and sited in sacred spaces that receive enormous publicity. Meanwhile, less conspicuous works of Leonardo, Raphael, Botticelli, Donatello, and others vibrate with personality, originality, inspiration—connection with “the Muses.” 

We realize PluribusOne™ is guilty of heresy in the court of consensus art authority; therefore, we need to present strong evidence for our conclusion. To that end, the following three paragraphs synopsize three of four cornerstones of our argument. 

First, we look to Michelangelo’s early life where his father witnessed his innate inclination, his personality that favored manual labor over intellectual endeavor. Although Michelangelo did not lack well-rounded schooling, it is known that he avoided the study of Greek and Latin languages that would signify a thirst for delving firsthand into earlier knowledge and ideas, for doing research toward discovering new data, making conceptual breakthroughs, developing fresh perspectives. Instead, his David reflects triteness, and his approach to its design was from a traditional conservative mindset compared to, for example, Donatello’s earlier risqué rendition. And nothing in Michelangelo’s repertoire compares to the power embodied in Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. 

Second, we look to Michelangelo’s earliest works in marble and see a mind focused on conforming to established images and techniques as he reproduced iconic sculptures that display no clue that he felt connected to the spirit of the subject matter. To wit: after having completed the bust of one elderly visage, Lorenzo de Medici (who had effectively adopted Michelangelo) pointed out its unnaturalness, which Michelangelo hastened to correct. Not to denigrate Michelangelo’s extreme skill with tools of the trade; David was a masterful work. Yet Michelangelo admitted that the job was mainly methodical and physically demanding. Patrons could count on him to bring these talents and traits to any task, and far better than a distractible polymath genius like Leonardo. Not surprisingly, Michelangelo was recognized as best candidate for the grueling Sistine Chapel project. 

Third, we look to his later work and dispute the accepted view that he was both the designer and painter of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, rife and rich with creative application of heretical symbolism. Not that he lacked familiarity with the ideas, exposed to him by scholars of the day, or that he made no creative contribution. However, some of those referred to as “helpers” were clearly designers, not mere laborers sent in to lug plaster and to paint-by-numbers. It was, in fact, Michelangelo who performed most of that physical task.

In 1942, and again in 2000, Cardinals of the Church supported the Church’s claimed justification in terminating Bruno’s life, an action said to have been taken in service to “truth and the common good.” However, at worst, only excommunication was justified, based on Bruno’s disobedience to vows and his abandonment of certain doctrines—that plus, perhaps, deportation from that barbaric domain so devoid of human rights. That he might have saved himself by stepping down from the sure opinion of his ideas, by humbly recanting in the face of his condemnation, makes their act no less evil. 

To say that Bruno had a healthy opinion of himself would be understating it. No stranger to shameless self-promotion, Bruno described himself as: “Doctor of a more difficult [Egyptianist] theology, professor of a pure and quite blameless wisdom [Hermeticism], distinguished in the preeminent academies of Europe, a philosopher approved and honorably accepted, a foreigner nowhere except among the barbarous and ignoble, conqueror of the presumptuous and recalcitrant ignorant… whom the propagators of foolishness and the hypocrites detest, whom the good and studious esteem highly, and whose mind the more noble applaud.” [Bracketed words are ours.] He was the Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) of philosophers. 

Brother Bruno considered it ignorant to take the Holy Scriptures solely literally. The full meaning of Matthew 5:13-16, for example, had not escaped him: “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” Bruno was not pompous; he simply refused to hide or dim his God-given light. To the contrary, he wielded his candlestick like a sword. 

Fortunately, the bright light of Filippo Bruno (his name at birth) was reflected and preserved in books that he wrote, several while under protection of patrons in France and England, and all of which (books) were subsequently banned by the Church—locked away for nearly 300 years. Among those available in English, are: The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast; Cause, Principle, and Unity; The Ash Wednesday Supper; The Cabala of Pegasus; Chandelier; and On the Composition of Images, Signs, and Ideas. Others, such as On the Shadows of Ideas, are accessible but not yet in English. 

After more than 400 years the Church’s posture regarding such theories as extraterrestrial life (“plurality of worlds”) is more inclined toward Bruno’s thinking, but, try as it may, the Church will never subsume or outlive the works and memory of Giordano Bruno. In 1885, despite its vehement opposition, an enormous monument and statue of Bruno was erected by Freemasons on the very site of his fiery execution.

How is this well-demonstrated reality—one that has been re-verified repeatedly over the last twenty-plus years and used to support claims of the therapeutic efficacy of homeopathic remedies—possible? 

The effect is real, PluribusOne™ concludes, because the structure of every kind of molecule originates in—and emerges from out of—atomic and subatomic web-like patterns of vibration. In PluribusOne™’s nine-dimensional model of Omniverse, three dimensions are dimensions of Consciousness. It is from within these dimensions that the vibration pattern of every single thing that becomes present in three-dimensional Space is established prior to assembly through three dimensions of Time. 

The idea that sub-molecular vibration patterns produce physical effects and precipitate physical objects is not at all strange or unscientific. The problem at the root of the controversy is not that scientific principles are being violated; the problem is that not all principles of Nature have been revealed, understood, and accepted. Many processes and effects are invisible to those who can see and work with no more dimensions than four. Sometimes even “double-blind experiments” cannot avoid inadvertently supporting conceptualizing that is double-deaf and double-dumb. Mindset creates its own blinders. 

Muddying the research waters further are skeptic-influenced experiments that mysteriously fail to demonstrate positive results. Blinkered debunkers take the subsequent “leap of doubt” (to coin a term) that such failures are due to some error or outright fraud in the numerous successful experiments. Not so. Despite persistent efforts, no one has ever found evidence of fraud or a flaw in an affirming experiment. At least some of the failed tests are due to the phenomenon known as “experimenter effect,” or “observer effect,” with which quantum physicists are very familiar. The scientist himself or herself can never be completely removed from the equation. 

The human mind is a powerful conduit of creation and destruction within the dimensions of space-time. A negative expectation, or desire, can have the same demolishing effect on extremely diluted solutions of antibodies that occurs when overheating or freezing them. The demolishing effect of hot and cold on diluted solutions is not controversial. Nor is the amazing fact that diluted antibodies can be highly stable, even for years. What is missing is wider recognition of the reality that: unfriendly temperatures are not the only destructive influences that can affect test results. 

At the end of the day, the good news is that immunity to disease is, essentially, a function of Consciousness. The bad new is: so is disease. Are homeopathic preparations effective in curing diseases? They are if you believe they are. Praying and the “laying on” of hands can be equally effective. And, as the results of testing funded by the Department of Defense over several decades indicates, healing (and harming) influences can be transmitted remotely—without any physical or visual contact.

More than a mere keepsake or empty gesture, a token can be something that symbolizes and/or is substituted for something else. Tokens are sometimes objects, such as rings, gems, or medals and always represent power by proxy. Sometimes they are symbols of symbols, such as a subway token that stands in place of “legal tender,” vested with its own symbolic value to serve a passkey monetary purpose. The intention of a corporate logo or emblem is to identify, energize, and immortalize the company. School, class, or secret society rings are further examples. Superstition, or something more? Sigmund Freud had matching rings cast for members of his inner circle. 

Totems are similar—objects having symbolic meaning. Totems, like tokens, convey power by proxy, but totems are more iconic in an openly spiritual or religious way—archetypal (in Dr. Carl Jung’s conceptualizing) and part of a tribal myth, a sacred story, as Joseph J. Campbell acknowledged. Like tokens, sometimes totems are symbols of symbols, such as a likeness of a tiger that represents the actual animal and, in turn, symbolizes the qualities attributed to and expressed by a tiger. Any animal, including a human, can be a totem. The eagle, for example, can serve as a totem involving powers such as long-range vision: the ability to see events at a distance in space and/or time. 

Like tokens and totems, talismans are symbolic. Like tokens and totems, they empower by proxy. Unlike ordinary tokens and totems, talismans are less subtle conveyances of power. They are overtly magical tools—sometimes weapons, often associated with a deeply held belief system—links to the masculine or feminine aspects of creational energy. The crucifix is a masculine Christian talisman, as are hilted swords. Rosary and Mala beads, as well as amulets, are feminine talismans with respect to their components, configuration, and application, including mouthed actuation. Talismanic tokens are usually present at turning-point initiations, including marriage ceremonies involving “something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue.” 

The underlying recognition, reinforced by millennia of human experience, is that there is higher power in the universe and that one’s intention to tap it benefits from use of intermediary devices, channels through which the power is concentrated, boosted, and flows forth to serve specific purposes. A magic wand, or water-diviner’s dowsing rod, directs the user’s consciousness. But such instruments are not absolutely required; the hand or mind alone is adequate for one who has mastered the art of psychic detection. 

It should be mentioned that a proper token, totem, or talisman is not an idol; idols are objects mistakenly perceived to be the origin of power. A worshipped talisman is no longer of use as originally intended. Worse: the channel becomes a barrier. Perhaps this is what happened with the biblical Ark of the Covenant and the Urim and Thummin. Although 100% effective in the Israelites’ earlier days, these highly—perhaps overly—revered sacred instruments failed to ensure the First Temple’s preservation.

Talismanic magic was a function of the very oldest known artworks: cave paintings made to ensure success in hunting. The practice of talismanic magic was carried down through Western culture via the Egyptians, the Chaldean Magi, and the Medici Academy, among other conduits of arcane knowledge. It is well known to present-day historians that the Medici strongly identified themselves with the Magi of the Christian gospels. The family of Amerigo Vespucci—the explorer from whom America would gain its name—were business associates of Lorenzo de’ Medici. Born in Florence, Italy, Amerigo was educated in occult arts and ritual magic, as was Botticelli. 

Although it remains uncertain whether this painting was commissioned by Lorenzo the Magnificent or by his cousin Lorenzo di Pierfranscesco de’ Medici, the work was clearly funded by the Medici family and held under their control. We believe that some confusion about its provenance exists because (we speculate) it was commissioned on behalf of, or as a gift to, a secret society. The painting continues to reside in Florence, housed in a gallery constructed in 1581 that is located adjacent to the Medici Palace. It is not coincidental that the gallery’s design incorporates alchemical principles. 

La Primavera portrays a vision of the promise of the New World that was already known from ancient maps held by the “Illuminati” of the day, those few who were also privy to records of earlier excursions to the overseas continent by Templar ships and, very possibly, privy to secret scriptures related to the lost tribes of Israel as well. The equally talismanic work later painted to portray the process of achieving this grand vision was Botticelli’s Birth of Venus (see our post: “Analysis: Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus”). The two paintings are so closely connected in their purpose, setting, and symbolism that some analysts have erroneously taken the two as being, in effect, physically conjoined. 

The essence of the Egyptian ennead, the gods of Egypt, is reflected in La Primavera via culturally-adjusted Greek gods and goddesses. Art historians typically count the presence of eight figures, making separate mention of the aerial Cherub; the fact is that there are nine figures, including “Cupid.” Nine is the significant number, from both numerological and mythological perspectives as rooted in the most ancient occultism. The central “Venus” figure is Roman Catholicized—presented as mother-to-be Virgin Mary. The sky, as visible through the trees behind her, forms a subtle semi-halo, and the Cherub (common symbol of God’s presence) is positioned directly above her. The model for this rendition of Venus was most likely Amerigo’s late relative: Simonetta Vespucci. 

Our contention that the New World agenda was, in large part, a financial/commercial enterprise is expressed by the positioning and posture of “Mercury” (as merchant and intermediary). This figure appears to bear the likeness of Giuliano de’ Medici, Simonetta’s illicit lover. Uninvolved in the rest of the activity symbolized in the painting, he is focused entirely on plucking the bountiful natural resources of the intriguing new environment. (See the Image File #35.)

Truth is neither so plain nor so simple. “A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” is a famous quotation, but untrue outside of the narrow minds and paradigm of such students of philosophy as Gertrude Stein, whose rose-is-a-rose quote drew upon Shakespeare’s: “…rose by any other name…” which conveys the associated thought that things are what they are regardless of what they may be called. How we can claim otherwise? 

Here’s how: First, everything perceivable is a symbolic representation—nothing perceived is exactly/fully “itself.” Every physical object, for example, is an extension and expression of a thought, a product of Consciousness, a creation of Source Energy. Second, every single thing has its origin in a master set of vibration principles; therefore, everything exists un-alone within a complex shifting matrix of countless interwoven correspondences. This means, in part, that the vibration pattern underlying the color blue also expresses as shape, sound, emotion, and etcetera. Third, everything that exists embodies the three dimensions of Time—every single thing is continuously changing; by the time something is, it is no longer precisely that which it just was. 

“If what you are saying is true,” skeptics ask us, “then why is your alleged reality of such ubiquitous correspondences not more obvious?” The primary answer to that is: context. Contextual conditioning affects perception. The secondary answer is: perceptual ability. 

The context surrounding a given percept, for example, is immensely complex and not always in sync or harmony with it. Mozart’s music played on live instruments in a concert hall is not the Mozart heard over a cheap radio on a noisy city street-corner or the Mozart heard in person long ago. The setting sun is never the same when seen from Duluth as it is from San Diego; any certainty that the two are the same sun is intellectual, not sensorial. In addition, as research psychologists discovered, the brain makes color and other logic-defying adjustments based on lighting and other environmental conditions. 

Perceptual ability is somewhat innate, but perception can be enhanced by training and experience. The average person might never detect a counterfeit Vermeer painting, but the trained eye of an Art Fraud Investigator will notice the difference almost immediately. A well–traveled person might appear psychic to others when they instantly identify a certain photograph of a sunset as one having been taken on the Pacific coast. A person trained to use our Noetitek™ system, which employs the Law of Correspondence and proprietary techniques, can discern a great deal more than you might expect about anything you might want to put under a multi-dimensional mental microscope. 

The majority of people are—as neuroscientists have discovered and reported publicly in recent years—cognitively inhibited, either neurologically “wired” or culturally conditioned to automatically filter perceptions that are considered extraneous: useless, unnecessary, distracting, or overwhelming. Not everyone can be an Einstein, van Gogh, or Mozart, but anyone can expand his or her perceptual abilities.

• Do you believe that all or almost all external events, including economic conditions, are the product of fate (destiny, stars, genetics, etc)? 
• Do you feel your life is out of your control, that you are, for the most part, a pawn in someone else’s game of governance? 
• Are you convinced that transformative change is unattainable and will remain so until something outside of you creates the opportunity for such change? 
• Do you believe that the most important attribute a person can acquire is the strength to endure adverse circumstances? 
• Do you believe that trying to implement dramatic change in your life can only—or will most likely—increase your pain and suffering? 
• Are you drawn to periodicals and broadcasts that examine all that is wrong in the world, and listen to experts who diagnose and treat symptoms while offering no hope for cures? 
• Are you inspired by speakers and authors who encourage you to focus your desires on some world to come beyond the grave?

If you answered yes to any one of the above questions, you are a victim of Epictetus Disease. Most likely, you contracted the disease in childhood, among adults who were also lifelong sufferers. A further “acid test” that can confirm the presence of this disease is that sufferers are typically impervious to anecdotal as well as hard evidence that the disease is curable. In the most severe cases, sufferers commonly reinterpret positive input—including religious scriptures intended to save them from the ravages of this disease—such that even the most enlightened revelations come to serve as messages of damnation, disaster, and doom. In those extreme cases the disease is almost always fatal. 

Epictetus Disease is named (by us) after the philosopher, Epictetus, who lived from about 55 to 135 CE. Raised as a Roman slave, Epictetus lived a life of poverty and deprivation. Ironically, Epictetus claimed that his philosophy was based in “self knowledge,” whereas it would be more accurate to say that it was based on his limited personal experience and his resulting assumptions and rationalizations in the midst of cultural confusion. Although Epictetus did believe that some things are within the power of an individual, he believed that most things are not. We admit that his philosophy was not completely devoid of wisdom although, overall, it was a crippled philosophy correspondent with his crippled state of being, in mind as well as body.

All barriers are, first of all, perceptual barriers. PluribusOne™ has curative tools for awakening minds.