Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby guruilla » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:37 pm

I didn't bring up this anecdote in the podcast for this very reason, that, & it being so inflammatory. I'm not convinced this "Diana" (a pseudonym) is a reliable witness or that Diamond was wise to include her account in the book. If there was a trial, I wouldn't call her to the stand unless she had something to back up her story (Diamond says "Diana" did know private details about Cohen that convinced her she knew him, at least). So my bad for including that passage at the thread at all, chalk it down to over-excitement after the shock of discovery. Not that I'm saying it's inherently unbelievable, either, just too distracting.

Your overall point I am not sure I agree with. I don't know enough about how this world (that of celebrity or any other sort of espionage) works, for one thing. And the point about "if Cohen was like this" presumes that we are talking about his personality, which I'm not, mostly. The podcast lays out a long series of facts about Cohen (some but by no means all from Diamond's own recollections) which, when all put together, make it undeniable that he is not what he seems (IMO), and that he is involved with covert agendas in some capacity, knowingly and perhaps also unknowingly.

It's also possible, if Cohen was subjected to the MKULTRA-style mind control traumatizing treatments which Diamond remembers experiencing herself, that, as with Strieber (and there's a mountain of evidence there), that LC was/is a multiple personality type. In which case, to expect some sort of consistency is to miss the point.

For the record, in six hours of podcast conversation with Diamond, we don't bring up any of the last four possibilities you list, and yet we still have plenty to discuss in terms of his being an operative. Even so, I don't see any real incompatibility between the 5 "careers" you list as existing anywhere besides your own preconceptions about how the world works or what people are like. Maybe you can outline why you find it so unlikely that a singer-songwriter who writes songs about the incurability of love is inherently unlikely to be a child abuser, a snuff film participant, or an occasional/failed assassin?

Or maybe you can listen to the podcasts and base your arguments on that content, that way you will be at least working with all the evidence?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby guruilla » Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:22 am

Comment left by Diamond at my website tonight, as response to the latest podcast with Ezra Sandzer-Bell in which we discuss LC, seems relevant to recent exchange here.

One thing: Cohen as artist is different from Cohen as MK victim or (more to the point) programmer. Esthetics and morality are also two not the same animal. By all means, admire his art – but don’t neglect the fact that he has led a double life. I wouldn’t say his songs etc were programmed into him – i tend to think they are how he resisted his programming. They are the only resistance he allows himself.

I’m also aware that knowing the artist personally can be a liability – not just because people who don’t often assume a personal grudge. It’s way more complex in fact, and involves a lot of cognitive dissonance and IRONY, the main ingredient in his writing.

There’s also the shock of realizing “how few make it” — and what goes into “making it” — including the construction of a fake self or as you say “disembodied voice” — and the literal pile of dead bodies one must walk over to be famous.

I would be careful of identifying too much with anyone who has achieved star status – for that very reason. But Cohen is much more than a multiple personality. I think in fact he’s quite integrated – he has to be, to serve his masters. This is not a theory. It’s backed up, unfortunately, with evidence that most people are just too delicate to integrate – they simply cant take it in because it’s soul-shattering.

Cohen’s mission has been to lead succeeding generations back from the brink of rebellion, and reinstate good old conservative values like stoic obedience to authority, manly silence, and let’s not forget “decency” (a favourite Cohen slogan) which often spells “corruption.”

I don’t understand how his fans manage to blur him into a kindly father figure when his history is all written down in black and white.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby brekin » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:47 pm

gurilla wrote:

I didn't bring up this anecdote in the podcast for this very reason, that, & it being so inflammatory. I'm not convinced this "Diana" (a pseudonym) is a reliable witness or that Diamond was wise to include her account in the book. If there was a trial, I wouldn't call her to the stand unless she had something to back up her story (Diamond says "Diana" did know private details about Cohen that convinced her she knew him, at least). So my bad for including that passage at the thread at all, chalk it down to over-excitement after the shock of discovery. Not that I'm saying it's inherently unbelievable, either, just too distracting.


I think because it is so inflammatory (and inherently unbelievable/bonkers) it should be considered. We shouldn't be looking at just the material that looks good for one side, but all the material, and lets be honest, this thread has been a little heavy on not having a critical eye at the material.

Your overall point I am not sure I agree with. I don't know enough about how this world (that of celebrity or any other sort of espionage) works, for one thing. And the point about "if Cohen was like this" presumes that we are talking about his personality, which I'm not, mostly. The podcast lays out a long series of facts about Cohen (some but by no means all from Diamond's own recollections) which, when all put together, make it undeniable that he is not what he seems (IMO), and that he is involved with covert agendas in some capacity, knowingly and perhaps also unknowingly.


No one is who they seem, least of all celebrities. No one gets famous without tapping into hidden powers and through relationships, kinships and business dealings we probably all have ties to it all in some capacity. But being an operative is a whole other caliber, and as "Diane's" recollection paints it, Field Commander Cohen is head of the Franklin Scandal unit of SPECTRE.

It's also possible, if Cohen was subjected to the MKULTRA-style mind control traumatizing treatments which Diamond remembers experiencing herself, that, as with Strieber (and there's a mountain of evidence there), that LC was/is a multiple personality type. In which case, to expect some sort of consistency is to miss the point.


If Cohen was so fragile I'd imagine he'd need much more handling and would be more of a news item. Unstable famous individuals seem to have a short shelf life and the cash in early scheme seems to be the best business plan for them. Of course, maybe they put him in deep freeze during his long sojourns in buddhist monasteries.

For the record, in six hours of podcast conversation with Diamond, we don't bring up any of the last four possibilities you list, and yet we still have plenty to discuss in terms of his being an operative. Even so, I don't see any real incompatibility between the 5 "careers" you list as existing anywhere besides your own preconceptions about how the world works or what people are like. Maybe you can outline why you find it so unlikely that a singer-songwriter who writes songs about the incurability of love is inherently unlikely to be a child abuser, a snuff film participant, or an occasional/failed assassin?


For one, there just isn't enough hours in the day. Also, if Field Commander Cohen is involved in such activities to such a brazen hands on degree, there's no way he'd be able not to eventually get caught in a bad situation where he'd get the sticky end and be more trouble than he is worth. Phil Spector, Robert Blake, don't seem like stable individuals and were probably solo low level dabblers in this realm and they screwed up without no golden parachutes. After a certain point, unless you are the one running the country you can't be so brazen and sloppy.

Or maybe you can listen to the podcasts and base your arguments on that content, that way you will be at least working with all the evidence?


So, I have to listen to six hours of podcast when I'm having a hard time getting past the huge logical holes in what this writer has written on page one of this thread? You've already said there's no clincher showing Cohen is an operative but basically a ambience created by a thousand points of soft lighting that "Mr. Cohen moves in mysterious ways". I'm sorry but I don't think much is going to be changed if the material she puts forth is either interesting factoids (Cohen vacations coinciding around bay of pigs/six days war, student at McGill, etc) that can be interpreted either way, or A-Team/Franklin Scandal vignettes unattributed to real people.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby tapitsbo » Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:34 pm

What exactly would qualify someone as a non-operative? :lol2:

Would such a tag stick to someone like Cohen, given his official bio, let alone Diamond's aspersions?
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby zangtang » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:19 pm

mere victimhood presumably, - or a 'failure to launch'
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby brekin » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:43 pm

zangtang wrote:mere victimhood presumably, - or a 'failure to launch'


a.k.a. Beautiful Losers mode
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby guruilla » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:32 am

brekin » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:47 pm wrote:I think because it is so inflammatory (and inherently unbelievable/bonkers) it should be considered. We shouldn't be looking at just the material that looks good for one side, but all the material, and lets be honest, this thread has been a little heavy on not having a critical eye at the material.

Strange comment since you haven't looked at all the material and keep insisting you don't have time. My point was that if I was Diamond or her editor I'd advise keeping as much as possible to personal memory and provable facts.

This was my approach with the podcast, let the facts speak for themselves. Based on 95% of the feedback received, they seem to. You can of course infer that my listeners lack the critical rigor that you have, or that I do, but then I can just counter that you lack the intuitive faculties of my listeners.

brekin » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:47 pm wrote:If Cohen was so fragile I'd imagine he'd need much more handling and would be more of a news item.

Are multiples fragile? If so, then what would be the basis of MKULTRA? Or are you denying the reality of that also? I don't think any of us outsiders have much besides guesswork to go on as far as how mind-controlled operatives operate or how fragile they are.

A lot of your argument seems to stem from an assumption that things are more or less the way we think they are, and so we can extrapolate what's possible or credible from that. My assumption is closer to the opposite.

It seems to me that you're not just arguing about a lack of evidence (if you were, I presume you'd be more interested in going to the links and checking it out), you mostly seem to be making a priori statements about plausibility or the lack of it. It's a bit like what's been occurring around the Hampstead affair. But who here can say they really KNOW the way the world works?

brekin wrote:For one, there just isn't enough hours in the day.

Don't see what that has to do with it, just another assumption that sounds meaningful but isn't. For one thing, an operative wouldn't have to maintain a life or work on a career as, say, an assassin, if he's traveling around as a folk singer; he just needs to be in the right place at the right time. Hours in the day don't have much to do with it.

brekin wrote:Also, if Field Commander Cohen is involved in such activities to such a brazen hands on degree, there's no way he'd be able not to eventually get caught in a bad situation where he'd get the sticky end and be more trouble than he is worth.

Again, how is this different from a simple statement of opinion? I can just say I don't agree with that speculative interpretation of a hypothetical situation, which is true: I don't agree because I don't know. If you have some inside knowledge or direct experience to draw on here, let's hear it.

brekin wrote:So, I have to listen to six hours of podcast when I'm having a hard time getting past the huge logical holes in what this writer has written on page one of this thread? You've already said there's no clincher showing Cohen is an operative but basically a ambience created by a thousand points of soft lighting that "Mr. Cohen moves in mysterious ways". I'm sorry but I don't think much is going to be changed if the material she puts forth is either interesting factoids (Cohen vacations coinciding around bay of pigs/six days war, student at McGill, etc) that can be interpreted either way, or A-Team/Franklin Scandal vignettes unattributed to real people.

In other words, unless someone can give you solid proof on a silver platter, you won't waste your time hearing the full testimony, you'll just pull a "more rigorous than thou" pose and dismiss the whole thing as beneath your interest? But how rigorous is it really to expect a possible case of this nature ~ ie high profile cultural leader having a secret life as a mind-controlled operative ~ to just roll over and show you its privates? Wouldn't you expect to have to do some field work, some reading between the lines, deducing, intuiting, fumbling in the dark, comparing of patterns, and be prepared to let go of a whole bunch of preconceptions about how such a thing would work if it were possible?

Honestly, I don't get your methods of "inquiry" here at all. There's a lot of noise but not much substance. This isn't to be snarky, it's just that I'm not hearing any sincere questions or even clear arguments relating to the material, just an overall expression of disdain & disbelief. Also, how & why is this about me defending a case, exactly (a role you seem to have cast me in, or maybe I volunteered)?

Isn't this board supposed to be about teamwork?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby brekin » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:34 pm

guruilla wrote:
brekin » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:47 pm wrote:I think because it is so inflammatory (and inherently unbelievable/bonkers) it should be considered. We shouldn't be looking at just the material that looks good for one side, but all the material, and lets be honest, this thread has been a little heavy on not having a critical eye at the material.

Strange comment since you haven't looked at all the material and keep insisting you don't have time. My point was that if I was Diamond or her editor I'd advise keeping as much as possible to personal memory and provable facts.

This was my approach with the podcast, let the facts speak for themselves. Based on 95% of the feedback received, they seem to. You can of course infer that my listeners lack the critical rigor that you have, or that I do, but then I can just counter that you lack the intuitive faculties of my listeners.

brekin » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:47 pm wrote:If Cohen was so fragile I'd imagine he'd need much more handling and would be more of a news item.

Are multiples fragile? If so, then what would be the basis of MKULTRA? Or are you denying the reality of that also? I don't think any of us outsiders have much besides guesswork to go on as far as how mind-controlled operatives operate or how fragile they are.

A lot of your argument seems to stem from an assumption that things are more or less the way we think they are, and so we can extrapolate what's possible or credible from that. My assumption is closer to the opposite.

It seems to me that you're not just arguing about a lack of evidence (if you were, I presume you'd be more interested in going to the links and checking it out), you mostly seem to be making a priori statements about plausibility or the lack of it. It's a bit like what's been occurring around the Hampstead affair. But who here can say they really KNOW the way the world works?

brekin wrote:For one, there just isn't enough hours in the day.

Don't see what that has to do with it, just another assumption that sounds meaningful but isn't. For one thing, an operative wouldn't have to maintain a life or work on a career as, say, an assassin, if he's traveling around as a folk singer; he just needs to be in the right place at the right time. Hours in the day don't have much to do with it.

brekin wrote:Also, if Field Commander Cohen is involved in such activities to such a brazen hands on degree, there's no way he'd be able not to eventually get caught in a bad situation where he'd get the sticky end and be more trouble than he is worth.

Again, how is this different from a simple statement of opinion? I can just say I don't agree with that speculative interpretation of a hypothetical situation, which is true: I don't agree because I don't know. If you have some inside knowledge or direct experience to draw on here, let's hear it.

brekin wrote:So, I have to listen to six hours of podcast when I'm having a hard time getting past the huge logical holes in what this writer has written on page one of this thread? You've already said there's no clincher showing Cohen is an operative but basically a ambience created by a thousand points of soft lighting that "Mr. Cohen moves in mysterious ways". I'm sorry but I don't think much is going to be changed if the material she puts forth is either interesting factoids (Cohen vacations coinciding around bay of pigs/six days war, student at McGill, etc) that can be interpreted either way, or A-Team/Franklin Scandal vignettes unattributed to real people.

In other words, unless someone can give you solid proof on a silver platter, you won't waste your time hearing the full testimony, you'll just pull a "more rigorous than thou" pose and dismiss the whole thing as beneath your interest? But how rigorous is it really to expect a possible case of this nature ~ ie high profile cultural leader having a secret life as a mind-controlled operative ~ to just roll over and show you its privates? Wouldn't you expect to have to do some field work, some reading between the lines, deducing, intuiting, fumbling in the dark, comparing of patterns, and be prepared to let go of a whole bunch of preconceptions about how such a thing would work if it were possible?

Honestly, I don't get your methods of "inquiry" here at all. There's a lot of noise but not much substance. This isn't to be snarky, it's just that I'm not hearing any sincere questions or even clear arguments relating to the material, just an overall expression of disdain & disbelief. Also, how & why is this about me defending a case, exactly (a role you seem to have cast me in, or maybe I volunteered)?

Isn't this board supposed to be about teamwork?


It's really not that complicated. Do I need to climb the mountain to arrive at the mole hill that there really isn't any substantial evidence or even major inkling Cohen is an operative? Speaking of there's "a lot of noise but not much substance" you've said yourself that you really can't point to any clinchers just drip drops of ambient leads. The thing is, the onus is on the person making the claim, the more outrageous claim, the more the onus (megaonus?), to prove their claim. If I say Wayne Newton is an operative, the default assumption is, like most people, even celebrity-people, they aren't. So, why push it on people to prove the negative? You end up expending energy on proving the world is not flat.

But since we are a team, why not this, kick me over the pdf of I'm Your Man, (or first three chapters, no omissions) and I'll run it through the old noodle and let you know my take on the evidence. Or even the some other link of the best evidence.

Image
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby guruilla » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:52 pm

Two blog posts:
https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2015/ ... gineering/
(much of the material is not new because it's recycled from this forum; but scroll down and there's a bunch of Cohen poems with hints of something else going in with "FCC".)

The second one is more of an overview: https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2015/ ... gineering/

I doubt these will satisfy you, however, because I think we have a very different idea of what constitutes evidence. If you want documentation, I'd suggest searching FOI docs with the word "Leonard Cohen" in them.

There's also a summation with links I wrote at Disinfo. http://disinfo.com/2015/09/leonard-cohe ... gineering/

What's your opinion of Dave McGowan's Laurel Canyon work? Because if you consider that to be inconclusive then I don't think you are going to get much satisfaction from me. & if your only counter-argument to all this circumstantial evidence is "coincidence" then I'm gonna lose interest pretty fast. For me the evidence around Cohen can't, and shouldn't, be separated from other bodies of evidence such as McGowan's, my own work around Strieber, the Occult Yorkshire thread, and of course MKULTRA. They are all of a piece.

If you PM me an email addy I can send you the PDF.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby brekin » Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:48 pm

guruilla wrote:Two blog posts:
https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2015/ ... gineering/
(much of the material is not new because it's recycled from this forum; but scroll down and there's a bunch of Cohen poems with hints of something else going in with "FCC".)

The second one is more of an overview: https://auticulture.wordpress.com/2015/ ... gineering/

I doubt these will satisfy you, however, because I think we have a very different idea of what constitutes evidence. If you want documentation, I'd suggest searching FOI docs with the word "Leonard Cohen" in them.

There's also a summation with links I wrote at Disinfo. http://disinfo.com/2015/09/leonard-cohe ... gineering/

What's your opinion of Dave McGowan's Laurel Canyon work? Because if you consider that to be inconclusive then I don't think you are going to get much satisfaction from me. & if your only counter-argument to all this circumstantial evidence is "coincidence" then I'm gonna lose interest pretty fast. For me the evidence around Cohen can't, and shouldn't, be separated from other bodies of evidence such as McGowan's, my own work around Strieber, the Occult Yorkshire thread, and of course MKULTRA. They are all of a piece.

If you PM me an email addy I can send you the PDF.


Thanks for the links and the speedy drop. I'll start perusing as soon as I can.

Inside the LC is a great example and I think a good neutral node to approach this topic. I was a big fan of it and waited with baited breathe when it came out in book form. And if I could use the search function on RI I could find my post here about how ultimately it was a big disappointment. First, after a thrilling ride it didn't arrive anywhere. It was the True Detective of conspiracy books. There was a lot of scrumptious puzzling connections and proposed implications, but ultimately there was nothing showing clearly that there was (is) an organized method of manufacturing top acts for wide sociopolitical control. I was looking for the lost minutes from the Popular Music Thought Police Cabal either. Again, there could be, but it just wasn't shown and the book just petered out. If I get a chance I'll find my post that has more detailed gripes.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby backtoiam » Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:59 pm

but ultimately there was nothing showing clearly that there was (is) an organized method of manufacturing top acts for wide sociopolitical control.


mmmm...Hollywood?

Guruilla I am enjoying the information that your rebuttal process is dredging up, so for my own selfish reason I hesitate to discourage you, but I don't think this door will open...
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby guruilla » Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:04 pm

Actually I was disappointed with the book also, but part of that was being so familiar with the material that there was no longer any surprise factor. It was disappointing that McGowan didn't go deeper into connecting subject matter such as MKULTRA, MOCKINGBIRD, CIA modern art, and his own Programmed to Kill material, all of which gives deep background to LC (Canyon, not Cohen). I guess ironically I felt he didn't take it far enough for me, since I already am convinced that pop culture is being covertly created and always has been.

The maddening part is, if you asked me what convinced me, I couldn't narrow it down to specific sources or sets of evidence. It certainly wasn't McGowan or Jan Irvin. In a weird way, it was looking at my own personal history. I think in the end, and not counting the sort of superficial engagement with paranoid belief as a form of self-stimulation peddled by A. Jones & ilk, I think it's the only thing that ever does convince anyone: when it happens to you.

(For me this is the base value of Diamond's material.)

Since I've uncovered countless ways in which I was psychologically engineered by pop culture (which included the desire to be a Great Artist), it's no leap at all to accept that the figures who participated in my own engineering were themselves engineered.

At this point, I actually don't comprehend how someone could believe that intell. and deep politics can be separated from pop culture. 100% true. It just seems crazily naive at this point.

So maybe it's you who ought to be convincing me, brekin!/ :lol:
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby brekin » Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:10 pm

Yes. Well, I think there is a difference between saying intell. and deep politics can't be separated from pop culture, in the sense they have some influence, but saying they are the influence, do control it, they are the head and pop culture is the ass end, is the big conspiracy leap many are trying to make. The same could be said of organized crime, various religious orgs, cults, elite families, key corporations, etc

Being a sucker, consumer, fan is a far cry from being an indoctrinated tool of the state. Not saying there isn't a lot of overlap but as we continually see with various political campaigns tapping anti-establishment or liberal songs being used a lot of pop music is about generating cash, not ideals or ideology.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby Twyla LaSarc » Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:44 pm

To be fair. I am NOT a Leonard Cohen fan, in fact his dirges, I mean prayers, or are they songs?, completely evaded me until2006 and a friend tried to turn me on to them.

Can't stand his stuff, whiny self-pitying ass. Fuck Halleluiah, it goes on forever and it just makes me want to die to have it over with.

Anyhoo, I have no problem with examining his shit, thanks to both guru and brekin for keeping it rigourous and challenging.

But even if he ate babies and admitted it my friend (who is otherwise so cool) would never listen to that, nor kick him off the playlist although I wish they would.
Last edited by Twyla LaSarc on Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off”
User avatar
Twyla LaSarc
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: On the 8th hole
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby guruilla » Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:54 pm

(I hope the nic "guru" doesn't catch on, since "guruilla" was meant to suggest guru-buster! but hopefully the work speaks for itself...)

i think I first heard Leonard Cohen as a teen, mentioned on the UK series the Young Ones, "No one listens to me, I might as well be a Leonard Cohen record!"

For a while I had the idea Cohen committed suicide, and only later on found out he was alive & well. That idea probably came from the oft-repeated line that he made "music to commit suicide to."

A seeming throwaway jibe by a music reviewer that has now taken on more loaded meanings....
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests