I found this blog piece dead on – except numbers five and one, I am in agreement in total. It is called Top Ten Reasons I Love Writing.

I was curious about the Hawking post below – how many people would read it, and more so, how many people would go so far as to click on the Mathis paper to get a close-up view.

46 people clicked on the home page (I still get many more hits than that on old posts, but 46 is the number who came for a fresh view). Eleven people clicked on the Hawking piece, though that was not necessary to read it. That could mean that eleven people jumped to the comment section, where JC had a go at me. In the old days, that was what people I have banned would do – without reading anything, head for the comments. I got tired of that practice.

I deliberately noted that the Mathis piece was 3,700 words, or about 14 pages of reading. One person clicked on that link. One. Who, I ask, who? Reveal yourself!

This merely reinforces my impression that people don’t like to read – it’s all like homework to them. They want it quick and easy. If it requires analysis and thought, it loses audience quickly.

Thus the success of Huffington Post. Picture and headlines are all that it takes to convey the information our thought controllers want conveyed.

Not too many people know or remember, but Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy became Jackie Onassis in October of 1968. She married Aristotle Socrates Onassis, one of the wealthiest men in the world. He died in 1975. In a lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous world, the two shared six residences, including a private island in the Ionian Sea called Skorpios. Jackie would inherit only a paltry $26 million on his death, however. Ari’s daughter, Cristina, battled her for the family fortune,

Her first husband, John F. Kennedy was a well-known womanizer – that marriage in retrospect appears arranged. Joe Kennedy, Sr., whose mob influence played a large part in securing his son’s election in 1960, realized that a bachelor had scant chance of being elected president in this land, then as now. He convinced Jackie to marry Jack. He was known to be a persuasive man.

Here’s what is interesting … take a look at the two photos – John F. Kennedy, Jr., above, and a young Aristotle Onassis, to the left here. They appear to me far more likely to be father and son than John Jr. to have been sired by John Sr. The hairline, the lips and eyes seem far more a match.

British royalty is a rich well of fascinating debauchery and intrigue for some, but I find our own royal families to be as interesting. Here we have a Bouvier mating with a Kennedy, supposedly, but more likely with an Onassis to produce a young Adonis. And who could blame her – Ari probably offered her far more comfort than the promiscuous Jack. Her humiliations at his hands were legendary.

I’m not gay or anything, by the way, but John Jr. had to be among the most strikingly good-looking men ever to live. It’s a bloodline thing, I suppose.

Please understand, before you read this, that all of us can be fooled, are fooled, and are wont to admit it. I am not disparaging the ordinary busy distracted voter. I am one of that group, except for the “voter” part.
_______________

The operating principle “look here, not there” is widely used in politics to keep both casual and interested observers off a scent trail. Distraction is the essence of American politics.

Here’s an example: have you ever heard of the Koch brothers? Of course you have. I imagine sometimes that they giggle and laugh (and click their champagne glasses) as they send the progressive beehive into a tizzy by a mere press release or public statement. They are a focal point in politics.

Why do we even know their names? Real power does not show itself or tip its hand. The name “Koch” is easily pronounced “cock” among self-professed clever people. They are out in the open, easily reviled and ridiculed. Meanwhile, real power, always at work, is busy in other ways.

Here’s another example: The “Tea Party,” less and less emphasized as the Obama reign winds down, served a far different purpose than people imagine. It appeared out of nowhere and (by power of suggestion) became a force in Republican politics. It served both as a distraction and for perception management purposes.

The beneficiary: President Barack Obama. The guy is anything but the liberal, community organizer, and legal scholar sold to us in 2008. (I am not disparaging his real abilities, which are impressive.)

The Tea Party is comprised of right-wing stooges who were followed around by Fox News.  They held up stupid signs and yelled from the galleries. In the meantime, Obama moved forward with the what is referred to as the “Bush” Agenda, as if.

The result: Opposition from the far right solidified the notion that Obama was a liberal, progressive, even a socialist. The enemy of our enemy must be our friend. (I listen to Rush Limbaugh on occasion. He still hits hard on the notion that Obama is a leftist. This is the same principle.)

Obama has had a “successful” presidency, fooling both his own and the Republican Party followers alike.

Members of the Tea Party, at least the rank and file, are no more aware of this manipulation than the pwoggies who go ga-ga at mention of the Koch brothers.**

I first became aware of the real scent trail behind Obama when a Columbia University professor, Henry Graff, said that neither he nor any of his fellow professors were aware of any “Barack Obama” at Columbia at any time when he supposedly attended. I began to understand why his college records are sealed from view, why ghost-written best-selling autobiographical books magically appear to wide acclaim, and why a so-so speech in 2004 alerts the public that The One is on the horizon.

Obama is smart, cagey, secretive, and has a mysterious past. I don’t care about his place of birth – that too is distraction. The question is, where was he when he was not where he said he was?

The Tea Party forgot to ask that question. It’s too late now, of course, but an answer is emerging: Obama is an intelligence asset. He would be the fourth in my lifetime to serve as president.

Trust me, two of those four are not named Ronald or Dubya.
_________
*Obama was suggested to us in 2004 as having presidential timbre after a so-so speech at the Democratic convention. It is interesting that both Obama and the Tea Party took off due to the suggestibility of the electorate.
**I maintain that ISIS is an American invention, CIA all the way. Members of that group, disaffected Arabs bombed into seething reactionary posture by the American wars of their youth, are also unwitting pawns. True believers make the best possible pawns.

Some Jungian archetypes simply don’t stand up under scrutiny. The Muslim terrorist, brought to center stage life on 9/11 and used ever since to frighten the Ameircan public, does not.

ISIS does not. But we are fortunate to live in a land possessed of a mainstream media that does not do scrutiny.

This link, supplied by SK in a post below, is well worth anyone’s time. ISIS melts before our eyes, like an ice cube in the sun.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43085.htm