Nor did I ever say that Susan Boyle isn’t wonderful. She has perhaps one of the world’s supreme singing talents, which unfortunately went unnoticed for too many years. It would dismay anyone to think of all the albums she might have recorded, if she had been discovered sooner.

Yet, there is something more that begs to be noticed. It is something important, but identifying it requires a mind that can think outside the box.

The stage-management displayed in the “released” version of Susan Boyle’s TV performance showed a great skill in orchestrating acting talent in order to induce in people exactly those feelings that the producers intended. Despite the signs of that orchestration which are obvious to a thinking (or “cynical,” to use your term) person, most people won’t see them, or if they see them won’t think upon them, and so they will not ask themselves a question that they should. Namely…

What if this same level of emotion manipulating talent were used unscrupulously, in a way that did end up causing harm?

What if it were used to hijack a country’s democratic process by making people spend their votes recklessly, in effect voting for a series of governments, each more oppressive than the last, until finally they found themselves in such legalized strictures that they might as well consider themselves to be slaves?

One day, the music stops, and the party going public finds itself surrounded by the new Cheka or KGB and herded into whatever the new Tianamen square or to the new relocation camps, whatever they may be called.

When every last average-Joe can see a problem, it’s usually to late to avoid the consequences. So I like to sound the alarm early. If it is early. It might not be.

BTW, did you notice when Amanda Hopkins, at 6:52 in the video, said “Elaine blew it” on camera? Remember: this remark, too, was part of the stage management. Someone was sending a message of warning or comeuppance to a woman named Elaine. Was this woman Elaine Paige? What motivated this remark? Presumably, Elaine, whoever she is, would know even if the rest of us don’t.

Well done.

First, the camera-panning catches of significant facial expressions is simply too good, too apropos, to be serendipity. The judges remarks are too well thought-out to be spontaneous; most of them indicate that a bit of time has passed for reflection and word-smithing. The cameraman on the flying boom was ready to make his zoom-in pass when Boyle hit her high note–again, indicating that a degree of advance preparation had occurred. Likewise, the fellows off the stage left had been prepped with several smart remarks and had a camera backstage ready to speak them to.

Oh, there’s more. But that’s enough, I think, to convince most people that Piers Morgan and Amanda Holden were falsely pretending to be surprised after Boyle finished singing, and that Simon Cowell was telling the plain truth when he said that he knew Boyle’s singing would be extraordinary when she walked out on stage. Cowell probably intended that his correct statement would be DISBELIEVED, but it was, I think, true nonetheless.

What I think happened is this. Susan Boyle made an earlier appearance at some sort of talent contest and was scouted by someone from Britain’s Got Talent. She was given an audition off-camera and then invited to sing on the TV show. The audience was salted with people who had been to acting school and knew how to make facial expressions of the sort people have when making snide or catty remarks, or alternatively when to look “surprised” or “ecstatic.” I think that the real stage in the video is the ENTIRE AUDITORIUM. Susan Boyle might have been the diamond in the ring, but she wasn’t the whole piece of JEWelry there.

Still, all-in-all, the production was a worthwhile piece of art, and it achieves its lesser purpose of making viewers feel good. It also carries out a deeper purpose of providing a moral object lesson in the vein of “Never Judge A Book By Its Cover.” And, if I might presume, there is yet a third and yet deeper purpose that has to do with a very hidden tiger flexing its propaganda claws, just to stay in form.

The video itself was harmless. But consider what this level of illusion-making talent could do if it chose to be mischievous or, dare I say it, even criminal. It could, for example, predetermine the outcome of political elections by making one candidate look heroic or visionary, while, subtly and unjustly, leaving a faintly tainted odor on the other candidate. Beware! Learn ALL the lessons that this video has to teach, not the pretty ones only.