The Persistence Of Memory
… and the Opposite Of Truth …
Graham remembers a time…
Salvador Dali’s "“The Persistence Of Memory” No, really – and actually, he remembers lots of times.
John says … So did ‘Chuck’ Dickens
Graham says … Surely ‘Marcie’ Proust? But I digress…
John says … ‘Chuck’ … Tale Of Two Cities
But what he actually “remembers” of course is his reconstruction and even concatenation of those times, which may make for good stories, but even with the best intent may barely resemble the actual events. Memories melt, fold, dissolve, as Dali observed. But at least with repetition, the stories get better, which is a lot of the point of “laying down memories” while you can. But what happens when what one needs is recent, accurate records of things said and done? Especially when others insist, as hard as they can, that things did not happen, were not said, or were quite definitely done and stated. Taking as a jumping-off point Trump’s recent Time interview, with unverifiable stuff redacted (just the first page, ma’am)… In the full transcript of the interview published by Time, Trump lies a lot, says a number of half-true things, does not admit he was incorrect to link Ted Cruz’s father with Lee Harvey Oswald, foists responsibility for his inaccuracies onto media reports that he misrepresents, says the word “Brexit” 11 times, and forms sentences like “Brussels, I said, Brussels is not Brussels.” … what remains [after redaction] is everything the president said that is definitely true. You might say, how can that happen? These things are recorded, written down – they form, if you like, part of public memory… But Trump’s instinct is correct in at least one area. The things he says may not have been “true” then, but perhaps they will be. Or, more correctly, will have been… In the Time interview, as the Atlantic notes,
Trump unrepentantly rehearsed his litany of false or unsubstantiated claims with Scherer. Was Ted Cruz’s father linked to Lee Harvey Oswald? “Why do you say that I have to apologize? I’m just quoting the newspaper.” (The newspaper in question is the National Enquirer.) Had the president tapped his phones? “A lot of information has just been learned, and a lot of information may be learned over the next coming period of time. We will see what happens.” Were there 3 million fraudulent votes cast in 2016? “Well I think I will be proved right about that too.”
He will, as he notes, be right eventually – with enough repetitions of his version and a fast-decreasing number of trusted, objective sources to say,
No, No, it wasn’t that way!
Eventually all we see is that the Emperor’s suit was always transparent and, as he always says and always did, that’s what all the best people are wearing. And always have. And anyone who cares to argue may just face a tough primary, or fall off a roof, or have a nasty car crash – just like the people who argued with Vlad over the years. How quickly we (will) forget.
The Other Chap Has Two Things To Say
1] No I didn’t.
Graham says … Oh, yes you did. I remember it well.
John says … Now you sound like ‘Maurice’
2] There are certain images that cannot be unseen. And this chap would like to point out that it was the other chap that said
the Emperor’s suit was always transparent.