I’d agree with the above but add that it’s not necessarily possible, or even desirable, to separate a research-heavy discussion from a therapeutic space, if and when a survivor is being called on to testify. How is a survivor going to develop the chops to present his or her story in a sober, balanced, and convincing way, and how are they supposed to learn to distinguish between overly subjective evidence and the sort that people can accept, except by entering into such liminal spaces?
While I wouldn’t want to suggest that RI is that space, this thread has more or less turned into some weird sort of petri dish in which we are getting to study stuff, not just the question of whether Leonard Cohen was an operative, but a much larger and more far-reaching “organism.”
It’s a bit painful to participate in because it’s like a collision of worlds that I pretty much single-handedly brought about. Since I not only started this thread but also, indirectly, brought a key witness to participate on it, I’m caught between roles. When I approached Ann Diamond, it was with curiosity and a desire to hear her story. From what I’d heard already, it seemed credible; after talking to her, I was convinced she was telling the truth as she remembered it, and that her testimony, along with the known facts about Cohen, added up to a pretty strong case. Nothing anyone has said at this thread has changed my mind about that, but as I already said, what I believe or don’t believe is not really an issue. At this point, the issue isn’t even whether Cohen was an operative or not (something that’s highly unlikely ever to be proven, by the very nature of the charges). It’s like we have moved to a “meta” level.
I’ve already mentioned my feeling that there’s too much rigor and not enough intuition, curiosity or open-mindedness at this thread. As brekin points out, this is only to be expected when the testimony is such an unfamiliar one, and what better place for an author (Ann Diamond) to find out how well her arguments hold up than in a mosh pit like RI?
Someone who has experiences outside the consensus view of things is likely to encounter two sorts of reactions from people: either total disbelief, and possibly hostility; or complete acceptance and agreement, from people who already “know about all this stuff” and are eager to hear more dirt on the Illuminati, the Reptiles, the Jews, the music industry, whatever. Part of the value of a space like RI, for me, is that it’s a bit of both and really neither. A person who’s new to here, and to deeper parapolitical analysis, might easily read one thread and assume that a Henry Makow link would not go amiss here, or that talk of reptilian shapeshifting wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. (Which it didn’t at first: the first person to comment at this thread about that passage expressed appreciation for a more nuanced view of the Ickian trope). Hell, I’ve made my share of blunders at RI; I think my very first post I got shredded for calling Loose Change “entirely convincing,” or something of the sort.
What lunarmoth as a newb might not realize is that, just because someone responds to your points with skepticism doesn’t make them an enemy, or even a debunker. And just because someone accepts your version of Leonard Cohen, MKULTRA, or whatever it is, unquestioningly doesn’t make them an ally. Chances are more likely to be the reverse: friendship is opposition.
Anyway, my point isn’t about going easy on newcomers, or for newcomers to grow some rhino skin, but about how easy it is to forget that any sort of set narrative about what’s going on is always going to marginalize, ostracize, and potentially scapegoat, not just any voices that inadvertently challenge it but any observations
and even facts
You think I didn’t have qualms about introducing AD’s work (via my podcast and this tread) to people, knowing that she had seen LC (sort of) morph into a lizard, or that she had a piece at Makow’s site? (Though I am reasonably sure she didn’t choose the title.) Obviously I did, but I try hard not to let ideological concerns get in the way of research, meaning that, just because a given testimony happens to coincide
with some highly questionable narratives out there, it doesn’t mean the testimony is automatically tainted by association. IMO, that’s a major element in how research is sabotaged: by making certain areas ipso facto
Lunarmoth, or whoever, may have a lot to learn about how to contextualize her experience in such a way that it doesn’t end up being fodder for right-wing, anti-Semitic, fundie Christian Illuminati-hunting-COINTELPRO nutjobs, or whatever (I don’t want to badmouth Makow, I don’t know the guy). But what better place to learn it than RI? And how is she gonna learn it if no one takes the time to walk her through the ins and outs of contextualizing information, verifying sources, and all the rest, and instead just brings out the big guns? Isn’t that a sort of dominant ideology at work (the ideology of rigor)?
Also, just because someone hasn’t learned to couch their material in the right methodology doesn’t mean that they don’t have anything worthwhile to share. Again, that brings methodology dangerously close to ideology, if information becomes tainted simply because, for example, it got picked up by a source we don’t particularly care for.
None of this came out as well as I’d hoped, but the reason I've taken so long to try and nail it down is because I think it’s an opportunity to see how the genuine desire to get to the truth can easily be sabotaged, and how that’s part of the set-up. And part of the opportunity of a space like RI is to see the ways in which that can happen, and counteract it.
Meanwhile, for lunarmoth, if you haven’t fled in terror or frustration yet, here are some questions identity asked that got lost in the shuffle. Just be careful how you answer!
identity » Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:12 am wrote:
AD, thanks for "coming out" here, and being available (hopefully!) to answer any questions readers and others interested parties may have. I have a few questions:
1. The ebook is quite a bit longer than the printed book. Are you editing/updating/adding to the ebook version as time goes on?
2. Your source re: the Lennon murder suggests that it was done for revenge. Do you believe that LC murdered JL and, if so, do you think the motive was personal or was it a case of MC?
3. What was your purpose/goal in mentioning the various things which have taken place on Oct. 9th and Dec. 6th involving yourself, LC, JL, and/or the RSs (which I have quoted in a previous post)?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.