.

Yeah. Once again I'd like to give a public congratulations to Gavin Newsom for one of the best political plays of the year. I've told you before that he, instead of saying no to reparations — well, actually this is more the San Francisco board, but the San Francisco board came up with the recommendations. So here's what they came up with. Huh. I was going to try to read it without laughing, but I don't know that I could do that.

So the reason it's brilliant is that when you ask the people who were in favor of reparations to come back with a detailed plan, you can know in advance that the detailed plan will just be laughable. Like actually just laughable. And then you don't have to be the person who's against reparations. You're the person who tried to get a committee to come up with a plan. Well, it's not your fault if the committee came up with a laughable plan that nobody would possibly implement. That's not your fault. So Gavin Newsom for the win.

Here's the plan that the committee came up with. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors met Tuesday — this is from Fox News site — in official discussions on the reparations with five million dollar payments on the table for every eligible Black adult in the city. Oh no, I'm not done. I'm not done. The board expressed unanimous support for reparations during the meeting even after Stanford University Hoover Institution calculated that the proposal would cost non-Black families in the city at least $600,000 each.

Members of the San Francisco board also expressed interest in other forms of reparations because that's not enough for the city's roughly 50,000 Black residents, including a guaranteed annual income of $97,000 a year for 250 years. For 250 years. Each person. Well, what is the average lifespan of a Black resident of San Francisco? I know they must — I think they live longer there, probably to a thousand, but anyway. $97,000 for 250 years. And wait, hold on. And a home that they would purchase for one dollar for a family. One dollar.

So they want one dollar home purchases. Now since the person selling the home obviously has to be compensated, you would have to add the roughly, I don't know, what's a home in San Francisco, a million dollars, two million dollars. So you'd have to add a million dollars to each Black family, say. So the $600,000 per non-Black resident that they have to pay, you have to jack that up. In other words, maybe $100,000 to buy all the homes, but also to pay the annual $97,000 for 250 years. Well, probably each non-Black resident, maybe a million dollars. Maybe a million dollars per non-Black resident as their fee to pay for the fact that none of them have anything to do with slavery.

All right. Well, I'd like to double down on something that got me in trouble and say that as I tweeted, I don't want to spend time near any cluster of white people who have been poisoned by wokeness narratives. Is that racist? Is it racist to say I don't want to be near any cluster of white people who have that mindset? Now I don't think I would have been canceled for saying that, would I? No, super racist, super racist. But it does not include conservatives. Like white conservatives, great. And by the way, Black conservatives, love them. You know, I don't even know if I've ever seen a Black conservative who wasn't doing well. Have you? Is it my imagination or is it every time I have any encounter with a Black conservative, younger, older, they seem to have done okay? Like they have jobs and families usually and like all the things you'd imagine signify some kind of personal success.

So I think when I got in trouble, my hyperbole disguised the fact that I was talking about a mindset, not anything genetic. Was there any of you who misunderstood my comments about the context of staying away from — I won't say it again out loud — but people who have a mindset that you're the problem? Why would you want to be around people whose mindset is you're the problem? Did anybody figure out when I said hey, Black Americans are being poisoned largely by white people to believe that white people are the problem, why would you want to be around that? Literally nobody disagreed with the idea. It's just that it's racist.

So I'll say the same thing about white people. White people who are in a Democrat cluster, I'm sure there are some of them that are just great. Even I'm sure there's some progressives who are actually just great people, have a little bit different opinion. I don't mind them, of course. And of course I'd judge everybody individually because you have to. It's the only smart thing to do. Judge people individually. And when I say judge people individually, that's not a race frame. Have I ever explained that? When I say I'm adamant about every individual must be treated as an individual, not a race, not a religion, that's based on math. That's not based on any racial anything. That's a personal success math-based strategy. The more people you have access to, the more successful you will be. It's called networking. Those are the people who offer you jobs. So it's about mindset and it's not about race. It never was about race. It was never about race. But my hyperbole quite intentionally made it look that way.

All right. RFK Jr. was on video recently. I was listening to him and he reminds us that before Obama's presidency, it was illegal for the CIA to manipulate the minds of Americans. They could do it in other countries, but it was illegal for them to try to brainwash Americans. Obama changed that and made it legal again to brainwash Americans.

So do you think that he made it legal just in case anybody ever wanted to? Or do you think that the CIA immediately said, whoa, we better immediately start a department to manage the opinions of Americans? Well, if you've learned nothing from what I've taught you about the Dilbert kind of organizations, the moment it was legal you should assume that somebody at the CIA said, you know what, if you were to give me a promotion and a budget, I could run the department that is in charge of this and we won't go wild. We'll only use it when it's necessary for public safety, for example. Maybe we'll stop a bank run. How about that? Maybe we'll stop a bank run. That would be good. I wouldn't mind that. Would you mind if you found out later that the CIA had somehow managed our minds to stop a bank run? Some say they would mind. I respect that opinion. Yeah, some will say they mind. Others would say, you know what, under that specific situation I'd rather they stepped in. And I think both could be supported. I think smart people could be on both sides of that question.

But does it make you wonder? Now let me ask you this. Do you think the CIA totally said this isn't our thing? Or do you think the CIA said, oh, this is exactly our thing. We got to stop this bank run. And if the CIA wanted to stop a bank run, how would they do it? Well, what would be the tools they would employ? Well, what they would use is people. People who were willing to do what they asked them to do. So they would go to newspapers and they would go to networks and various, but they would also make sure that they got some prominent voices that were persuasive to say what they wanted to say.

Did you see a number of prominent voices that were on the side of controlling the bank run and taking care of it? Well, you did. Now I'm not saying that they were CIA influenced. I'm saying that's how they would do it, which is different from any individual being part of that. So I'm not making an accusation about any individual. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised. Oh, somebody says me. No, no. Nobody contacted me.

Well, that's a good point. If nobody contacted me. But would people think that I was pro-CIA or a critic of the CIA? How would you interpret my public work as a critic of intelligence agencies? 50 members of whom signed the laptop from hell disinformation. Well, somebody says I'm both and that's fair. Yeah, I'm both because I think we need the CIA, but clearly if you look at the behavior of our intelligence organizations in the last several years, they do seem weaponized against us and they do seem politicized. So I've been saying that for a long time.

All right. So here's my question to you. If the CIA had the legal ability to manage public minds and brainwash people, would they act against their critics? Do you think the CIA would act to minimize their critics? Some say yes, because it's legal. It would be legal to protect their own brand if they could argue that that was good for the country. Oh yeah, we don't want the CIA to be dismantled. That would keep the country in a weak state. So we'll manipulate people into thinking we're awesome. And one of the ways we do that might be to get rid of our critics.

Do you remember when the newspapers canceled me but suspiciously only Democrats seem to be really, really angry? Whereas conservatives, once they heard the context I was talking about, conservatives almost to a person said he shouldn't be canceled for that. Even if they didn't like it, even if they thought I was over the line or too offensive, pretty much conservatives said, you know, still it's not cancelable in their opinions. And pretty much it was just Democrats versus Republicans in the end.

So my first take on this was that it was really political, meaning that the newspapers wanted to get rid of me and anybody who was a Democrat wanted to ge