Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
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.
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?
zangtang wrote:mere victimhood presumably, - or a 'failure to launch'
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.
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.
brekin wrote:For one, there just isn't enough hours in the day.
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.
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.
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?
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.
but ultimately there was nothing showing clearly that there was (is) an organized method of manufacturing top acts for wide sociopolitical control.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests