And this makes me ask the following question. What will history report about the last several years and maybe the next several? Didn't you always think that history books, sure they might have been biased in the sense that they would leave things out? You know, maybe there were things that one country would de-emphasize. You know, maybe the country had a history of doing bad things so it de-emphasizes that and maybe it emphasizes the things that they did right. Or maybe it credits somebody for winning a war that maybe they didn't. You know, they weren't the main reason the war was won. So there must be a lot of that. You know that history was written by the winners for the purpose of brainwashing the youth.

Now if you don't know that that's what history is for, you're probably living a confused life. History in terms of the history books and the history lessons is not designed to tell you what happened. It doesn't have that purpose. You're taught that it has that purpose when you go to school. You think you're learning history for the purpose of becoming educated and becoming a citizen who knows how to function, etc. That's not the purpose. That's not even the intention. It is expressly for brainwashing.

Now I'm not complaining about that because brainwashing children is what you need to do to children. If you didn't brainwash children to be good citizens they would not be as good as citizens. You actually do have to train children because they don't have critical reasoning. And if you don't train them like animals with a treat — hey, you know, do this, do this, you get a treat — if you don't do that you get bad citizens. So it's not like there's much choice at the moment.

But imagine who writes the history books of this period. Who's going to write the history of this presidency? And if they write it, is it going to say that Charlottesville was real or are they going to say it was a hoax perpetrated by the media to imagine that the president said that the Nazis were fine people? If you're new to this conversation, at the same time he said that there were fine people in Charlottesville he very quickly and without prompting said I'm not talking about the Nazis, they should be condemned totally. So he is as clearly as you could possibly say it, he condemned the racists. But it's reported as the opposite.

Now what about the Russia collusion story? You're watching with your own eyes that the world split into two movies. When there was uncertainty, and this feels like quantum physics or something, when nobody could observe the truth of the Mueller report, when you didn't really know what was going to be in it, the world was sort of on the same side. Some people suspected that it would be bad, some people thought it wouldn't be, but we were still sort of in the same world and we didn't know and we were waiting for an answer.

But once the answer came, instead of people saying ah, a common answer, let's all circle around this and have the same interpretation, that didn't happen. As I told you would happen, the world split into two movies in which there are two completely opposite truths that are operating simultaneously. One truth is that there were some indications that people lied in a political context and some people lied about contact with Russians but none of it amounted to anything. So in other words, on one side it was a witch hunt. There was nothing important at the bottom of it, just some people behaving badly with some lying and stuff.

But half of the country or something like it actually believes that that report was so damning that it is quote a roadmap to impeachment. So if you're the historian and you're the historian who needs to write this story, which version of reality do you pick? Do you pick the reality in which he was not found technically guilty enough to be indicted but that there was plenty of evidence of collusion because you're being told that by let's say Clapper and Brennan and those guys? You know they're selling a version of history that is invisible to the country that just doesn't see it at all. Only one of them will be the history.

So how about the history of whether or not the president mocked Serge Kovaleski, the reporter who had a congenital problem with an arm so he had a bad arm? And you've all seen the videos of the president making a mocking gesture that looks like he's mocking that guy. So if you saw that and you thought well that's reality, well that's your history. Except if you see all of the other videos in which he's mocking people with the same motion, you see that he just does it to mock dumb opinions. He made the same motion when he mocked Ted Cruz, entirely different time, and he's made the same motion when he's mocked other people.

So which truth will be in the history book? Will you learn, so will someday students learn that there was a president who was so bad he mocked people with disabilities in public? Or will they learn it didn't happen and the media framed him? Those are not the same. Only one of those could be true.

Will they learn that the president was good for the economy or will they learn that he was lucky and he inherited a strong economy from Obama? Well somebody gets to write the history books. Which way are they going to write it? Did the things that he did, were Trump's actions important to get us to where we are or were they unimportant? Will the history books say that we had a racist in office or will they say that we had a media which was out of control? Those are not the same. You know I mean you could imagine there would be some overlap but those are very different histories.