Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

[brekin]

To be a bit more clear, brekin: you are talking about potentially libelous material at this forum. You think the title: "Leonard Cohen, operative? (Ann Diamond material)" is potentially libelous whereas "Leonard Cohen, Creepy Dude" passes the test. I think you base that on the idea that "creepy dude" is a description based on a personal opinion (not mine btw) whereas "operative" is a statement of fact that can presumably be proven or disproven. I think that's why guruilla cleverly added a ?

Which makes it a question, not a statement of fact.
I won't keep repeating this, but guruilla created that title and should be the one to change it, if it's determined to be libelous
As I understand it, I am allowed to tell my personal story. If others are named, then I have to be careful of making damaging statements about them which can't be substantiated. But no one can deny me the right to write about my experiences. People can ignore, dismiss, or question that they really happened - and people have done this especially after reading parts of The Man Next Door.

I feel on the whole it's better to occupy a space on the fringes of reality when telling the truth, because much of what goes in life is extraordinary if we allow it to be, and story telling is often about the extraordinary. I'm the storyteller in this situation. Guruilla or rather Jasun was the interviewer who got me to tell my story on his podcast. He made a special effort to get it "straight" knowing I had a tendency to get mired in details. He acted like a coach or trainer and it worked because I was ready to present it in a relatively logical and responsible way which he supported by listening closely and commenting brilliantly. But that was after (as guruilla) he had already posted the inflammatory excerpts here.

Guruilla later came to question whether certain parts of the book could be hallucinations or distortions brought on by trauma. That's an interesting question that could be explored although I wasn't ready back in October. Also, material that surfaces through trauma shouldn't be considered "false" just because it's emotionally charged
I don't do drugs but I think high levels of stress and emotional anguish can cause us to experience the world with heightened sensitivity and to perceive things differently than we would in our normal conscious state (which is really just another kind of trance).

In our interview, Jasun did some mild cross-examination of some of my stories and details. By the end he seemed persuaded that I was pretty rational though describing things that must have seemed a little iffy. However, Jasun is a "liminalist" and has had his own share of strangeness

In the interview I didnt only talk about my personal experiences. I cited facts, matters of historical record and, in a way, built a case for Leonard Cohen having lived a double life, with two careers - one of them visible, the other not. For anyone who ever fell under the spell of Cohen's public persona, that's an intriguing concept.

So Jasun was to some extent won over to my point of view simply by allowing it or enabling it to come out. Guruilla was not. Guruilla had already created this thread, and started a discussion in digital print form. Its not "print" but it's close to print. It's definitely not audio or a two-way conversation face to face or Skyped from a toilet in Greece. It's more of a free for all and naturally I felt slightly exposed and even betrayed but I agreed to let it roll on.

As an ex - journalist I'm very aware of how powerful elites control our media and limit discussion of topics like this one. That's not a "conspiracy theory" - I've experienced it first hand. I think one effect this control is having is to keep us in an infantile state and isolated from one another. This is how they want us.
This forum is where issues of libel have surfaced and I'm sensitive to those issues. It's not the first time. I don't know how to resolve these issues without a legal opinion from someone knowledgeable. If it's a question of who is responsible for posting potentially libelous material I think the responsibility falls on the person who created the forum, the admins, and the people posting.
Although I'm the source of the stories or "rumours," I took some care in writing The Man Next Door so that I wouldn't get sued for false accusations. I'm fairly sure Leonard has had a legal adviser go through it for libellous content. Since i'm selling very few copies and doing nothing to publicize the book, it's hardly worth it to sue me.
This forum is another platform altogether. Over to you.

It's only libelous if it is a false statement. If it is a true statement and potentially damaging to someones career, like say being a fly by night, kick down the door, snuff film producing, head of the gang rapists, then why would such a public figure want to pursue litigation against someone making such a statement if it was true? To draw attention to such a possible "second career"?

And that is where the evidence comes in. If someone had a record of LC at McGuill undergoing experiments and made such claims, if they were pursued legally then they could turn around and say, I was just going off this record. But, if it is just a "rumor" then they can't prove the statement is true or not, because it is just gossip talky talk. It's like one of the only times when Savile was publicly accused by The Sun of frequenting the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne and being involved in sordid acts. He said he never was even there and started legal proceedings against them and then someone brought forth a picture of him there out front standing with a bunch of the kids and he had to admit he actually was there. In the end it all comes down to the evidence.

And that is really my only interest. I'm more interested in product than the process. If LC's first career was built on a road of bones from his second career then I'm sure there is at least some tibia or mandible laying around. Just give a dog a bone about this old man and I'll go rolling home.

[lunarmoth]

Well, brekin, someone handed you a photo and you just said "It's not him" although you can't prove it isn't. I suppose you want him to be holding a guitar and sporting a name tag -- and twenty years older so you could be absolutely certain. Sorry. This was a classified project involving TERMINAL experiments on orphans hidden in basement rooms. Cohen was an unwitting 17 year old subject. He hasnt sued them -- the reasons for that are definitely worth pondering. But he has on occasion talked in private about having been there.

People who talked often died early deaths. Any more questions?

Since we last heard from you I've been adding more information and connections to this thread but I sense you're not highly motivated to read and analyse it. You're just interested in flexing your brain-glands and spraying your scent around the forum so we know you've been here.

Please feel free to comb The Man Next Door for libellous statements and get back to us. Because you haven't really readnyou are confused and jumping to baseless conclusions about what he's been "accused of" - but in fact I haven't accused of anything. I've put together a narrative in which he often plays an ambiguous role, which is pretty much the story of his life.

People are free to draw inferences based on the "Ann Diamond material" -- the jury is still out.

[brekin]

lunarmoth wrote:

Well, brekin, someone handed you a photo and you just said "It's not him" although you can't prove it isn't. I suppose you want him to be holding a guitar and wearing a name tag -- and be twenty years older so could be absolutely certain. Sorry. This was a classified project involving TERMINAL experiments on orphans hidden in basement rooms. Cohen was an unwitting 17 year old subject. He hasnt sued them -- the reasons for that are definitely worth pondering. But he has on occasion talked in private about having been there.

We've already been over the photo numerous times, and you yourself, twice, said it could be anybody. As it is someone with a blind fold on I can't prove it isn't young Adolph Hitler seeking relief from a migraine either.

People who talked often died early deaths. Any more questions?
Since we last heard from you I've been adding more information and connections to this thread but I sense you're not highly motivated to read and analyse it. You're just interested in flexing your brain-glands and spraying your scent around the forum so we know you've been here.

I love that line "flexing your brain-glands and spraying your scent around the forum so we know you've been here". It definitely paints a picture.

Please feel free to.comb The Man Next Door for libellous statements and get back to us. Because you haven't really readnyou are confused and jumping to baseless conclusions about what he's been "accused of" - but in fact I haven't accused of anything. I've put together a narrative in which he often plays an ambiguous role, which is pretty much the story of his life. People are free to draw inferences based on the "Ann Diamond material" -- the jury is still out.

So, at journey's end, LC is just an ambiguous guy, unaccused of anything. Great, I think we finally have an answer.

Q. Leonard Cohen, Operative?

A. Nope.

Why do I have that True Detective finale feeling again?

[Elvis]

I think Brekin is holding Lunarmoth to an unfairly high standard which insists that no one should speak out about anything they can't empirically prove—rendering a great number and variety of important RI discussions meaningless. By this standard, no MKULTRA survivors should tell their stories, no ET contact experiences or UFO sightings should be related, no personal witness may be made about anything unless it comes complete with documented proof.

Brekin, with all respect, I can appreciate some cross-examination and questioning, but you've made your point (and "nope" is certainly no logical, definitive answer to the OP question) so could you please stop harrassing Lunarmoth and this thread with your prosecutorial line?

[guruilla]

The King has spoken.

[lunarmoth]

Thanks Elvis and the little buddha. Nowhere did l say "it could be anyone." Because I know exactly who it is. But as there is a big difference between what you can "know" and what you can assert as fact, I am leaving space for interpretation. Maybe, of the tiny number of student volunteers for Hebb's sensory isolation experiments in 1951 when LC was an undergrad and needed the money, one volunteer happened to be a non-related identical twin who dressed just like him.

Or let's say the photo illustrates a fact I heard from the horse's mouth.

[brekin]

I think Brekin is holding Lunarmoth to an unfairly high standard which insists that no one should speak out about anything they can't empirically prove—rendering a great number and variety of important RI discussions meaningless. By this standard, no MKULTRA survivors should tell their stories, no ET contact experiences or UFO sightings should be related, no personal witness may be made about anything unless it comes complete with documented proof.

Brekin, with all respect, I can appreciate some cross-examination and questioning, but you've made your point (and "nope" is certainly no logical, definitive answer to the OP question) so could you please stop harrassing Lunarmoth and this thread with your prosecutorial line?

I'm all for exploring and hypothesizing on a topic, but I think if you review the entirety thread you'll see that many had taken LC as an operative as a forgone conclusion early on. Not only was most of the evidence skimpy to nonexistent much of it had logical problems. I empathize with the problem that the harder to believe is often harder to prove but I think if you are going to go big you had better something more than creative thinking on the matter. I'm sorry my bringing up reality is seen as a problem for some, but I can't help but laugh at how even a mild critical examination of facts and one shade of diversity of opinion is seen, somehow, as a problem.

And I strongly reject your framing my contribution as harassing Lunarmoth and this thread. Again, if you review the thread she's been much more insulting, personal and off topic to me than I ever have, or will be. She replies to my posts and I to hers. Often she brings me up when I've stopped responding to her and to the content. And you do realize by not having any critical standard for such content that would render all RI discussions meaningless? And probably flood it in sticky sweet b.s. for all time?

Is belief a requirement now to participate in a thread? I think you need to examine why one lone voice in the fairy tale asking questions is seen as deviant to you.
So Elvis, with all respect, your request to turn off my mind is denied.
And don't ask again.
Buddy.

[Elvis]

I think Brekin is holding Lunarmoth to an unfairly high standard which insists that no one should speak out about anything they can't empirically prove—rendering a great number and variety of important RI discussions meaningless. By this standard, no MKULTRA survivors should tell their stories, no ET contact experiences or UFO sightings should be related, no personal witness may be made about anything unless it comes complete with documented proof.

Brekin, with all respect, I can appreciate some cross-examination and questioning, but you've made your point (and "nope" is certainly no logical, definitive answer to the OP question) so could you please stop harrassing Lunarmoth and this thread with your prosecutorial line?

I'm all for exploring and hypothesizing on a topic, but I think if you review the entirety thread you'll see that many had taken LC as an operative as a forgone conclusion early on. Not only was most of the evidence skimpy to nonexistent much of it had logical problems. I empathize with the problem that the harder to believe is often harder to prove but I think if you are going to go big you had better something more than creative thinking on the matter. I'm sorry my bringing up reality is seen as a problem for some, but I can't help but laugh at how even a mild critical examination of facts and one shade of diversity of opinion is seen, somehow, as a problem.

And I strongly reject your framing my contribution as harassing Lunarmoth and this thread. Again, if you review the thread she's been much more insulting, personal and off topic to me than I ever have, or will be. She replies to my posts and I to hers. Often she brings me up when I've stopped responding to her and to the content. And you do realize by not having any critical standard for such content that would render all RI discussions meaningless? And probably flood it in sticky sweet b.s. for all time?

Is belief a requirement now to participate in a thread? I think you need to examine why one lone voice in the fairy tale asking questions is seen as deviant to you.
So Elvis, with all respect, your request to turn off my mind is denied.
And don't ask again.
Buddy.

Fine then. I'm not asking you to turn off, or leave the thread, I didn't suggest your critical examination was a problem, it was good. But you made it clear that you'd like for Lunarmoth to go away, that 'perhaps this isn't the right board' for Lunarmoth, so it's easy for me to get the impression—wrong though I may be—that you keep grinding her down in the hope she'll tire of it and leave.

I think this is a good thread and worthwhile topic. I have no opinion about whether or not LC was MC or an 'operative' except that I (and obviously others) think the question merits attention—and for RI it's not even about LC as much as it's about the MC. I'm here as a listener, I'm trying to listen to Lunarmoth, she's expressed a willingness to continue and I think it'd be a shame if she was run off by over-aggressive skepticism.

So I'm just asking you not to push Lunarmoth away, can we let this thread "breathe" a little?; there's much more here besides LC. Your objections and conclusions are duly noted; I've stated mine, and will try not to interrupt again.

[backtoiam]

Elvis wrote

Fine then. I'm not asking you to turn off, or leave the thread, I didn't suggest your critical examination was a problem, it was good. But you made it clear that you'd like for Lunarmoth to go away, that 'perhaps this isn't the right board' for Lunarmoth, so it's easy for me to get the impression—wrong though I may be—that you keep grinding her down in the hope she'll tire of it and leave.

You are not wrong Elvis. Lunarmoth made it obvious that she was only telling her own story as it relates to this subject, and that she was not indicting anybody.

[brekin]

Elvis wrote

Fine then. I'm not asking you to turn off, or leave the thread, I didn't suggest your critical examination was a problem, it was good. But you made it clear that you'd like for Lunarmoth to go away, that 'perhaps this isn't the right board' for Lunarmoth, so it's easy for me to get the impression—wrong though I may be—that you keep grinding her down in the hope she'll tire of it and leave.

You are not wrong Elvis. Lunarmoth made it obvious that she was only telling her own story as it relates to this subject, and that she was not indicting anybody.

Uh, yeah he is. This thread was started regarding whether LC is an operative or not, triggered by guruilla running into AD's material. Her story is only of interest here to what it tells us of the former. If people are just interested in her story, like I said before, start another thread, go to another blog, her blog even. The Internet is pretty vast you know. If you want innuendo and circles in the sand, go for it.

But you can't have it both ways, LC is the name drawing people to the thread, but any close questioning about him and peoples theories is seen as unseemly somehow. Perhaps my questions interrupt some pet fable of many but this site isn't primarily a fan, entertainment site but a research and educational resource. lunarmoth is under no obligation to argue any side or provide proof, unless she puts forward a claim. The amount of attention and time spent framing her role, going over travails, process and guruilla house keeping is another testament to the loss of focus and avoidance of the op subject matter.

Why is all of this hard to understand? Why are so many allergic to any mild form of truth detergent?

[lunarmoth]

I think guruilla brought up the core issue a few posts back. I'd almost forgotten: brekin had a not-to-be-named source feeding him information, and when I blurted out her name, he went a little ballistic and guruilla took the brunt of that when it was my faux.pas. On the other hand, brekin, having lived next door to her for 13 years, I know exactly how she operates. I don't know the nature of your connection to her but she has a history of setting up informal spy networks and I have had plenty of encounters with her misinformed and zealous patsies. I don't know what she promises them - money? proximity to greatness? a place at the dinner table of fame? Does she convince them they are warriors serving a great cause? Whatever it is, it seems to work and resembles classic gang stalking. So it doesn't surprise me that she would have set up a similar network on the internet. These methods hark back to the seventies and I've described them in another recent post on here in response to tapitsbo's questions. And it's extremely strange to me, even now, to see that these methods, once learned, become ingrained in people as part of an authoritarian mindset that doesnt reason or listen to reason. I think behind it all is the same matrix of mind control and surveillance and censorship being used to cover up a world of organized crime. So if you're wondering why I have little patience with your obstructive and rigid contributions to this thread, there's your answer.

[Elvis]

This doesn't make sense:

This thread was started regarding whether LC is an operative or not, triggered by guruilla running into AD's material. Her story is only of interest here to what it tells us of the former. If people are just interested in her story, like I said before, start another thread, go to another blog

In a thread about Leonard Cohen's past, a person who knew him for many years, wrote a book about it—whose name is in the OP title—should not post in it?

What if Leonard Cohen decided to join RI and post in this thread? Should we tell him to get lost because he can't prove what he says?

[brekin]

I think guruilla brought up the core issue a few posts back. I'd almost forgotten: brekin had a not-to-be-named source feeding him information, and when I blurted out her name, he went a little ballistic and guruilla took the brunt of that when it was my faux.pas. On the other hand, brekin, having lived next door to her for 13 years, I know exactly how she operates. I don't know the nature of your connection to her but she has a history of setting up informal spy networks and I have had plenty of encounters with her misinformed and zealous patsies. I don't know what she promises them - money? proximity to greatness? a place at the dinner table of fame? Does she convince them they are warriors serving a great cause? Whatever it is, it seems to work and resembles classic gang stalking. So it doesn't surprise me that she would have set up a similar network on the internet. These methods hark back to the seventies and I've described them in another recent post on here in response to tapitsbo's questions. And it's extremely strange to me, even now, to see that these methods, once learned, become ingrained in people as part of an authoritarian mindset that doesnt reason or listen to reason. I think behind it all is the same matrix of mind control and surveillance and censorship being used to cover up a world of organized crime. So if you're wondering why I have little patience with your obstructive and rigid contributions to this thread, there's your answer.

The hazy conspiracy widens and imagine my surprise to discover I am a sleeper cell. I think there is a rule against accusing members of being disinfo agents, but like most of your shimmering and bright accusations, it is ultimately a linguistic soap bubble that pops before any tangibles solidify and your just vague enough to allude to the usual tropes of spy networks, mind control , etc but always elude putting a name on it. I have no idea what your "answer" above is, other than that any questioning is seen by you as another prong of the ill defined conspiracy and this may all stem from possibly a long running neighbor grievance. Yes, my use of logic in the thread is evidence I am in league with "the source" just another zealous patsie under the dominion of father LC. Proximity to greatness? A place at the dinner table? Bah, you can't hook a brekin with such groupie baubles. It was the complimentary t-shirt that sealed the deal and a picture with the earnest one himself (in a box somewhere if I recall).



Nice adoption of the current anti-legalist tone of thread, to. I think you, and assorted groupies (yes, you have some. accept them, guide them) should consider what types of thinking progresses with questions, and what type of thinking progresses without questions. I think you owe them at least that. Well, maybe also a t-shirt or two.

[lunarmoth]

Nice tshirt. She must have pulled that one up from the bottom of the drawer.

I'd go with http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server2200/ ... 80.jpg?c=2

[lunarmoth]

Anti-legalist tone? That also sounds like you've been talking to H.

When I lived next door she told me never to call the police (even if my place was robbed, which it was) without asking her first. I used to call the police a lot, back then, over things like brekins oops breakins, knife attacks in the park. Lo and behold: turned out she was benefactress and friend of the local petty crooks who hung Leonard's symbols in their front windows for all to see.

If anyone finds this a little surreal, I should point out: This was a slum undergoing early gentrification. It was just off the Main in Montreal, and the 1970s and 80s brought an expansion of the drug trade as cocaine and heroin were being dealt in bars bought for cash stored in warehouses.

My next door neighbour, Ms. H. was well acquainted with legalese. She threatened legal action against me once for asking what happened to Leonard's daughter. That was interesting. I thought about it for a while and told her she didnt need a lawyer, she needed a psychiatrist. But she already had a few of those too.

During the years I lived next door, I was subjected to harassment ranging from intimidation to character assassination. All emanating from a single source, who patrolled the alley talking into her portable phone. Several of my friends were told I was "dangerous and psychotic" but were too shocked to let me in on the secret. She had contacts in the media. When I met him, Leonard was trying to get her to move away but he gave up. Over time she proved her usefulness as a one-woman neighbourhood cop shop and human megaphone broadcasting gossip far and wide. I never really knew how far and wide as i was not included.

Leonard advised me just to ignore it as it stemmed from petty jealousy. So I took the high road which, as guruilla pointed out, doesnt work with sociopathic liars. Alas and darn it.

I skipped all that ugliness in The Man Next Door because it's painful and nasty and I dislike female mudwrestling competitions.

But now, thanks to my trainers at RI, i think I'm ready.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/sweetheart-l ... dylan.html