Episode 635 Scott Adams: Systems versus Goals, Dual Loyalty Tropes


  • Is Joe Biden…the human gaffe machine worsening?
  • Outrage Theatre, the daily media outrage
  • Can a person love both America and the country of their ancestors?
  • My NRA tweet was about the proper people making decisions
    • The NRA is MORE INFORMED on gun topics…than their critics
  • Finding or knowing the “root of a problem”, isn’t required
  • Carpe Donktum’s new meme website https://www.memeworld.com
    • A central location to find memes

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 625 Scott Adams: Jeffrey Epstein, Donny Deutsch, NRA


  • Donnie Deutsch continues to fan red-hot glowing embers…but why?
  • Why wasn’t Epstein on suicide watch?
    • Willful dereliction of duty or Institutional incompetence?
  • State Department policy update…
    • Comparing Israel policy to Nazi policy is anti-semitic
    • Is Donny Deutsch in violation of this policy?
  • Can the NRA self-police ALL gun owners to reduce gun violence?
    • NO NRA member has ever been a mass shooter
    • Could they be incorporated to help ID and reduce danger? 
  • Yang cries on stage, lots of empathy…but a leader who cries in public?
  • “Slow-Joe” as a nickname for Joe Biden
  • Massive consumption of mass shootings in movies, TV, video games…
    • …What influence do they have, for anyone “near the edge”?

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 456 Scott Adams: Best Week Ever for President Trump, Maybe the Country?

  • Topics: 
  • GREAT news week for President Trump, and America
  • Montana’s successful capitalism test for healthcare cost reduction 
  • Gavin Newsome likes President Trump’s opportunity zones 
  • CNN study, 34% of Latinos support President Trump
  • “Mr. Kellyanne Conway” gets mocked by Brad Parscale, President Trump
  • Beto is too busy running for President to help raise his own kids?
  • ADL, a left leaning org, finds right-wing extremism has DECREASED
  • Elizabeth Warren, supports reparations for black people
  • “Sonic weapon”, does it exist? Lots of people believe it exists
  • Nunes lawsuit against Twitter
  • Mass murder by gun: How many were by NRA members? NONE
  • Gun added to drone stories are beginning
  • 2020 Presidential Prediction: LANDSLIDE for President Trump
  • “Socialism is Risky” is a kill shot that guarantees re-election
  • We discuss what products do for us, like efficiency, functionality
    • Uber is brilliant, SEEING your drivers location, can text them
    • DoorDash has similar great feature tracking arrival of your food
    • WhenHub Approach has peer to peer version of this function
      • Meeting attendees, how soon will each arrive?
      • Dinner with friends or family, are they on their way?
      • No need to call or text while they’re driving,
      • Just check WhenHub Approach for location

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

Episode 293 Scott Adams: Antifa Terrorists, Caravan, Guns, Healthcare, Mueller


  • Oil prices are crashing, more bad news for Iran
  • Election recounts and election fraud
  • CNN notes that Fox News invasion stories have disappeared
  • Fox News seems to label their news vs. opinions better than CNN
  • President Trumps opponents fear things he might do…but hasn’t
    • A brilliant persuasion tactic by the President
  • Zero chance we won’t find out anything bad that Mueller finds
    • If it matters…we will eventually know about it
  • Suggestion: Appoint a “budget judge” for Mueller’s team
  • Out of the box gun safety thoughts:
    • If you own a gun, you must about join the NRA
    • The NRA is all about gun safety
    • App to report gun risk people
  • Why can’t there be 2 separate healthcare tracks?
    • Public system and a competing private system
    • Easily tested systems, no need to guess which is better
  • Medical apps using your phone to test EKG, blood tests, more
    • Self-healthcare possibilities are coming fast

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

Solving the Gun Problem With an App

    Today I give you a bad idea with the hope that you can fix it. As usual, this idea is more for fun than for reality. Unless you fix it. No pressure, but lives are at stake.

    The question is whether an app could reduce the death toll from mass shootings in public places. Follow me on this and see if there’s something there.

    I will only be discussing VOLUNTARY actions by citizens. The government is not involved in forcing this idea on anyone. If you miss the VOLUNTARY part you will end up down the 2nd Amendment rabbit hole.

    So, let’s say there’s an app that tells you whether a concealed-carry gun owner is nearby. Gun owners with concealed weapons permits could VOLUNTARILY sign up in a VOLUNTARY way to be tracked (without specific identification) to public areas. Anyone with the app would know whether these legal gun-owners are nearby – say within a block – but no one except law enforcement could unlock the identities. 

    The idea is to give legal gun owners – the kind who don’t mind being known to the government – a way to see which public places NEED them to carry. If they see on a map that a public place already has legal gun owners with weapons nearby, no need to bring your own. That day, you don’t mark yourself as carrying on the app But if you are heading somewhere that the app says rarely has a legal concealed gun nearby, you might decide to bring one for the greater good.

    Yes, yes, yes. I know, I know, I know. The bad guys would use the app to figure out where there are no guns.

    But keep in mind that the gun-free map would be changing all the time. The very next person who arrives might be carrying. And legal gun owners would learn, over time, where to carry and where not to carry, in order to get some sort of minimum coverage for public places.

    Let’s assume that the minimum requirement to register your gun with the app is that you have gun safety training, military experience, or police experience. No one else would be able to register on the app.

    If a shooting breaks out, the police can unlock the identities of legal gun-owners who VOLUNTARILY registered with the app so they know how many guns to expect in a given situation, and who to contact by cellphone.

    Over time, users of the app would learn when to carry and when it doesn’t matter so much. The gunless areas would eventually attract more guns of the legal type for defense.

    In a business environment, this could take the form of one registered employee who keeps the gun at work in a gun safe. The gun would still show up on the map if the user registers it.

    Gun owners who don’t want to be part of the program don’t have to participate. And obviously it only works in states with concealed-carry laws.

    When you comment, keep these things in mind:

    1. No gun owner will be required by law to use the app. It is voluntary.

    2. The number of guns might increase because of this, but they would be concentrated in the hands of people who have gun safety training and no evil intent. 

    3. This idea could be tested in one city. No need to go big until we know it works small.

    How bad is this idea?

The American Gun Problem – And How a Master Wizard of Persuasion Could Fix it.

    Caution 1: This post includes real hypnosis and it will influence some readers to a different opinion on guns. If you don’t want to be influenced, please do not read.

    Caution 2: You will not like what I say on this topic. That’s another reason to skip it.

    — Start —

    On one side of the gun debate in America we have a bunch of idiots spouting total bullshit arguments, generously sprinkled with cherry-picked statistics that are out of context or don’t apply to America’s situation. 

    On the other side of the gun debate we have exactly the same thing.

    And there is a simple explanation for this absurd situation. We make the same mistake every time when it comes to domestic issues: We look at averages and pretend those averages are useful for anything but starting fights. We do the same thing with all of our social issues:

    Average woman

    Average man

    Average Immigrant (He’s a criminal and a good citizen at the same time!)

    Average African-American

    Average whatever.

    There’s no such thing as an average person!!!

    All gun arguments are based on average people doing average things in average places. I agree that the average person should live in a world with far fewer guns because that guy is an idiot with no common sense, no gun safety training, and no gun locks. Luckily, the average person does not exist. Instead, you have some people who are smart enough to safely own guns, people who are far too dangerous or dumb to own guns, and a lot of people in the middle.

    Every individual has a different risk when it comes to guns. 

    So forget about average people. Let’s consider a few real people. Take me, for example. I offend people for a living. I’m doing it right now. And I weigh 150 pounds. 

    I am pro-gun. 

    Because …  I might someday have a good reason to shoot someone who is bigger than me or armed. If your reason for supporting gun ownership involves loyalty to a document written hundreds of years ago by slave-owners with muskets, you probably have some explaining to do. Don’t include me in that camp. I support gun rights because I think there is a good chance I might someday need to shoot a human. Period. If the Constitution prohibited personal gun ownership, I would have to consider violating that document, for my own sense of safety.

    My situation is unique, but it is easy to imagine there are other citizens who believe – correctly or not – that gun ownership makes them safer.

    At the same time it is obvious that too many innocent people are being killed by guns. For most people, the more guns in the environment, the less safe they will feel, and probably with good reason. How can a government create one set of gun laws that satisfies such different risk profiles? It seems logically impossible.

    The starting assumption that people are somewhat average in terms of gun risks is so absurd that any discussion on the topic turns into a debate over Schroedinger’s cat – it assumes the average citizen is simultaneously safer and less safe because there are people in both risk classes. 

    Am I wrong to think a gun improves my personal safety? (I have no kids in the house, by the way.) Beats me. There are no statistics that apply to my specific situation. And no study can accurately account for my psychological sense of safety. The important question is who gets to make the decision about how safe I can feel in my own home – the government or me?

    By way of context, I have been robbed three times at gunpoint in my life, including twice when I was a bank teller. On another day a gang member pointed a pistol at my head and pulled the trigger just to be funny. There was no round in the chamber. All of that happened in San Francisco, years ago. I mention those incidents so you know I understand the dangers of guns.

    Eventually I earned enough money to move to the suburbs where I have not been assaulted in years. But you don’t forget the experience of having guns pointed at your head. 

    I realize that nothing about my situation can be generalized to anyone else, and that is my point. We are all different in terms of gun risks. It is easy for me to imagine that millions of people are less safe because guns are readily available. That was probably the case for me when I was looking up those gun barrels in San Francisco. 

    So how do we balance the legitimate safety interests of citizens who find themselves in wildly different risk situations? Some need more guns to feel safe and some need fewer.

    The approach least-likely to work is the one we are trying now, in which the President pushes for gun restrictions while responsible gun owners resist. I don’t see that changing, no matter how many mass killings happen. 

    So here’s one suggestion, based on the rules of persuasion that I have been blogging about lately. The idea is for President Obama (or our next president) to do the following:

    1. Stop calling it a gun problem.
    2. Stop talking about gun control or even common-sense restrictions.
    3. Start calling it gun safety and personal responsibility (High ground maneuver.)
    4. Ask the NRA to propose a gun safety plan that addresses the nation’s legitimate concerns. (Ask them to take responsibility for their freedom.)
    5. Ask an independent body (The Swiss?) to score the NRA’s plan for budget impact, practicality, and impact on freedom.

    6. Keep pushing until the NRA comes up with a plan that scores well. Then implement it in one volunteer state, as a test.
    7. Put a billion-joule spotlight on the test, track results, and hold the NRA responsible for the outcome.
    8. If the plan works in one state, expand it. If not, tweak and try again.

    Here are a few ideas the NRA might support, although I confess to know little about their organization. I include these for the purpose of creating mental anchors and thinking past the sale. (Those are methods of influence.) 

    The NRA could propose…

    1. A massive government push to provide gun locks and gun safes.

    2. More gun safety training requirements.

    3. Death penalty (by firing squad to be ironic) for anyone who provides a gun to a future killer without first doing a background check. Under this plan, you can still sell your gun to anyone, but you take the risk of your buyer being a nut. In this model, everyone takes responsibility for their own actions, including private gun sellers. 

    4. Gun buy-back programs.

    5. Better enforcement of laws already on the books. (That probably requires a budget increase.)

    6. Law to require that a gun lock is included with every gun sold.

    That is just a starter list, so you can see what a safety-focused effort looks like compared to standard gun control arguments. I don’t intend my list to be a good start for a plan. I am not well-informed on this topic. In this blog we take rough ideas and see if we can shape them up.

    See what you can do with this one. Maybe you can save some lives.

    Afterthought: A reader of this blog once commented that the safest gun strategy is to publicly announce that you support gun rights while not keeping any firearms in the house.