Hypnosis & Influence

ermits have been given regarding the Pacific Palisades and Altadena fires. That only 500 permits have been given out of 16,000 structures lost. Now you've already heard that, but what's interesting is that CBS is reporting it and going after a blue state. So I haven't been following too closely the whole Bari Weiss running CBS News and how that's affecting things. But is this one of those changes? You know, you don't expect CBS to go hard in the old CBS. You didn't expect them to go hard against the blue state, but CBS News is going hard against the blue state. So that would be a good sign for independent media, meaning not being biased to one side too much. It's not independent per se. Well, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine. Can you remind me why Russia and the United States are enemies? It's kind of confusing because with other countries we don't play a zero-sum game, right? When we're dealing with our allies, we're generally happy if they do well. They're happy if we do well. And because we have this free market situation, both of us could do well. So it's not a zero-sum game where if we win, Britain loses. If France wins, we lose. It's not really like that. But why is it like that with Russia? And yeah, tradition. So one wonders if it's just a leftover habit, you know, something that's been with us for decades and we don't know how to get out of it. I've often speculated that the CIA has a lot of anti-Russia people because historically you needed them. But then if it came to a point where we didn't need a lot of anti-Russia assets, would they be able to take down their efforts or would they be sort of "I don't want to lose my job. The only thing I'm an expert at is anti-Russia, so we'll just try to be as anti-Russia as we can." Or is it about seizing Russia's assets? Is that a real play that the world is run by energy lords and the energy lords think, you know, if someday we could take down Russia or turn them into a puppet, we get all that money from their energy. Is it that? Is it a little bit that or is it none of that? How do we know? Is it over Ukraine? Because Ukraine looks like the current problem and it is but we were at Russia's throat and they had ours sort of trying to be frenemies long before that, right? So is this really because the US essentially did a coup of a country that Putin wanted to have control of, but it kind of took away his option to have that control over all of Ukraine? It can't be all about Ukraine, right? So I wonder what I would do if I were in a situation where I were trying to solve this. The hypnotist in me believes that you could hypnotize Putin with just ordinary language, meaning that you could ask him the same questions I'm asking. If you didn't want to dominate them and overthrow them, so you'd have to make this case. I would ask the following question. Why are we against each other? Like I know we do things to you, you do things to us, but why? What's the point of it? How do you possibly win if you're looking at it as a win-lose scenario instead of something where both sides could win? Could it be that we so distrust Putin that we can't let him have any power more than he has because if Russia grows it would be more dangerous than it is? That's not what I would say to Putin, but that's an aside. So I think that as long as we don't know what Putin's base motivations are, and I think I don't know. I think I don't know what his basic motivations are. Some of it is obvious. If you get into a war, you want to win the war. If a country is doing bad things to you, you want to push back so that maybe they do less bad things to you. So some of it's kind of obvious, but I don't think that we've drilled down to the important points. Is it possible that Putin is most interested in his legacy? Is he most interested in leaving Russia stronger than when he found it? Is he driven by history? So those would be things th

Episode 3063 CWSA 01/05/26

don't you think we would have seen them by now? Don't you think somebody would have produced that screenshot if that were true? So I think that's what Natalie is pointing out that if that were true, we would have seen it by now. Now there's always possibility that there's some reason we wouldn't, but I don't know what that would be. And then Trump apparently got involved with this drama, and he didn't like the accusation that the Erica, the widow of Charlie Kirk, didn't like the idea that she was involved in anything sketchy. So I guess he likes her. Trump likes her. And what did so Candace is actually asking people who donated to Turning Point USA that they asked for a refund for their donations. Now that's a pretty serious allegation. So bad that you should ask for your money back. I don't know about that. And then what it was that Trump got involved in is that there was some accusation that there were four tax-exempt organizations under TPUSA and that there was some allegation that they were under investigation. So if you were donating to an organization and you found out that there were four entities under their umbrella and that some or all of them were being investigated for criminal behavior, would you donate again? Probably wouldn't. So it's a pretty big deal whether that's true or false. And I guess Trump debunked it. So now the government has said, "Nope, none of the four tax-exempt organizations are under investigation." So I don't want to, he was beaten to death in his prison cell. This is Whitey. I can never read the last sentence of your comments because they go by too fast and I don't have a way to stop them. All right. But you can read the comments yourself and you'll see the corrections on the Whitey Bulger story. So I don't believe that there's necessarily anything bad going on with Turning Point USA. But let me give you this context. When was the last time a large well-funded organization was not corrupt? That's a tough question, isn't it? Because almost every time there's a story in the news and it's about, oh, there's this big well-funded political organization, isn't the story always that it was corrupt? Like every time. Now when I say every time, there does seem to be maybe an exception. And the exception would be if it's a conservative organization. Now I'm saying that with maybe a little wishful thinking because I don't know that that's true. But it seems to me that in the bubble that I live, the news bubble I'm in, I see left-leaning organizations being corrupt essentially 100% of the time. But what percentage of the time are large, well-funded, established conservative groups also corrupt? It seems like not as much, right? In fact, I can't even think of one. But if you said, can you name some left-leaning organizations that are corrupt? I mean, I'd be here for a while, right? So you would have to believe that Turning Point USA was somehow an exception to the rule and that it would be an exception that it wasn't corrupt because it seems like everything else has money and funding. Seems like they're all corrupt, but there is no, I don't think there's a specific valid accusation about Turning Point USA. And it could be that it just doesn't happen that much in conservative organizations. I hope that's the case, but I don't know. Fog of war. Yeah, there's probably a little of that going on. Well, Tucker Carlson, according to the Vigilant Fox on X, has made the Jeffrey Epstein death impossible to ignore again. So this is what Tucker believes. He was on some podcast. He said they did it on purpose and he was murdered clearly by another inmate. All right. And Tucker says, "I've been a journalist my whole life. It was not a perfect storm of screw-ups." Because that's the official story. It was just this weird coincidence of screw-ups. They never did the investigation into how this guy died. Is that true? They never investigated it. Maybe they didn't investigate it enough. I don't know that they never investigated it. Do you investigate things if you think you know exactly what happened? So maybe they didn't. Maybe his standard for how much is enough investigating was not met. Here's something I didn't know. According to Tucker, they redressed him in clothes that he wasn't wearing when he died for the pictures in the hospital infirmary. Do you believe that they dressed him in clothes for the photographs after he was dead? Maybe. I mean, I don't know. Would that be a mistake? Would that be a crime if they did that? Well, it would certainly change how you felt about it. Tucker says he asked former attorney general Bill Barr for the names of the inmates on Epstein's block and Barr wouldn't give them to him. And I'm not sure if you're allowed to do that. Do you think that would be legal? Are you allowed to give the names of people and what block they're in? I feel like that would be dangerous. So I'm not so sure that Bill Barr had an option there. But Tucker says, "They're convicted felons, dude. This is not secret information or national security. Why can't you tell me that?" All right. Then Tucker says, this is his view, they allowed him, Epstein, to be murdered in federal lockup. How could we continue to live in a country where a high-profile inmate can be murdered in our prison system by someone who is powerful enough to do that? So that is the big question, isn't it? Who wou

Episode 3042 CWSA 12/10/25

It was like a whole long episode. I watched every minute of it, which I almost never do. I don't watch usually the whole episode of anything, but so I'm grateful that you do, but I usually can't hang. But oh my god, is she talented. If any of you had the same reaction, her voice is just perfect. Her mastery of her topic, impressive. The ability to find an angle on something or a point of view that you haven't seen everywhere else. Amazing. The fluency with which she communicates. Oh my god. So smart. So smart. So talented. I watched that show and sat there thinking I need to get out of this business because I'm nowhere near that, right? I say great things about Megyn Kelly and of course Joe Rogan's a legend and you can name a bunch of others. Tucker is amazing. You know, just talent wise, you don't have to agree with everything they say. Just talent-wise, but she might be the best of all. She might be the best in the entire business. She might be the best. And one of the ways I judge that is if every minute is interesting, and it actually is. Now let me say clearly, I do not believe Brigitte Macron has a penis. I don't believe that at all. But when you see how well she supports that theory, that is entertaining. All right? If you're not entertained by that, I don't know what it takes to entertain you, but that's entertaining. Now when she suggests but does not say that she's sort of open to the possibility that some foreign entity was involved in the Charlie Kirk murder. And she doesn't have to say it, but we all know based on the context that she's thinking that maybe Israel had some involvement in that because Charlie had turned against Israel at the end. And that would be a pretty big risk for Israel because he would be important enough that if they lost him, that could be very expensive for Israel. So she did demonstrate that they have a motive. I didn't expect that. She actually successfully demonstrated that Israel had a motive to kill him, which is not funny, but I'm just sort of like so impressed how well she can bring things together that I don't believe, but still quite expertly sort of teased. So and I told you yesterday, I don't believe there's any chance that Israel was involved because they're way too smart. Netanyahu especially way too smart to do something that if there was even a 1% chance you get caught that would be the end of the game. That would be a dumb risk management versus just trying to deal with him and bring him back to a positive opinion. Much more doable much less risk than trying to off him. You know even if you thought you could hide your tracks no that's too risky. So I don't believe it at all. And the one thing you should keep in mind when you watch any of the top influencers when they've got a point of view that is not common and it's not held by other people. Two things I want to teach you about persuasion that I've mentioned before, but every time you hear them in context and applied to a real world thing, they get a little stronger in your mind. Number one, the documentary effect, which I mention all the time. The documentary effect means that if you're listening to one point of view for an hour, you're going to kind of come away thinking it's true because you listen to one point of view for an hour. It has nothing to do with how true it is. It will just seem more and more true the longer you watch. That's just what the documentary does. So Candace is sort of an example. It's not a documentary, but you know what I mean. It's one point of view for an extended period. So yes, that's going to be very persuasive coming from, in my opinion, maybe one of the best communicators who's ever been alive. I mean, she's really good. The other example is the other thing you need to know is the Bible code. Again, I've mentioned it, but every time you see an example of it, it reinforces it. The Bible code was years ago, it might have been the 60s or 70s, I forget. Somebody wrote a book called the Bible Code in which they found that you could determine that the Bible, you know, the regular King James Bible, had a bunch of hidden codes in it that could have only come from God. And they gave all kinds of examples. They said, "All right, and I'll make up this example, but it's stuff like if you took the first word of the page and then the second word of the second sentence, but the third word of the third sentence, they would form a prediction, which you can see in history actually came true." It'd be like big bomb 1949, whatever it is. And then you say, "Yes, it was forecasting the nuclear bomb." And the trouble was that although those codes did in fact exist, you could go look for yourself. They would say, "All right, yeah, well, sure enough, third word, second word on the next page." You know, if you follow this algorithm, it does make a sentence and it does predict because you can see for yourself that it happened. Do you know how the Bible code was debunked? Somebody took their algorithm and applied it to War and Peace and it also made a lot of predictions that came true. In other words, you can take any big body of anything that's complicated. Could be a book, could be a story, could be a real world event, and you can always find what looks like circumstantial evidence to any thing you want. Do you want me to prove that aliens were complicit in killing somebody? I could probably do it. I could find all kinds of well, did you know that there was a report of an alien in the area that day? Did you know that there were reports of aliens in other places where people were murdered? I mean, it would look like that. So pretty soon I could build this story of all this circumstantial evidence that would be so compelling to you that you would really think the aliens were involved. So when you watch Candace, remember the documentary effect means that it will be convincing because it's long and because she's really really good at this, like really good. And secondly, if you say, "But Scott, the evidence is real." Like you could check it yourself. There's the text message, you know, all that. And I would say, "Yep. Yep. The Bible code guarantees that any complex situation will have multiple hypotheses that all seem to have evidence." That's the whole point of a court case. Do you know that the defense in a court case is going to have a version of events with a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence to show the person is innocent. The prosecution will have a whole bunch of stories of circumstantial evidence that says they're guilty. So in every case you can make the case and the opposite case if it's a complicated situation something like a book and the Charlie situation is complicated enough that that's possible. Anyway, if you haven't watched Candace's show, I recommend it. It's tremendous. But be careful. All right. There was this meeting that Trump was at to I guess talk about looking into the sources of Antifa funding and I had a bunch of independent journalists who were there. Some of them had had run-ins with Antifa I guess and one of them Brandy Cruz said quote I'm living proof that you can recover from TDS. So she said this in front of the room and in front of Trump. She said, "I think I even got a little more attractive after I got rid of my Trump derangement syndrome." Boy, talk about saying something that is going to amuse Trump. Trump couldn't get the smile off his face. I think he agreed with her that she became more attractive. Anyway, so if I had to give some advice to Brandy, who went from an anti-Trumper TDS person to a oh maybe I was wrong about all that. Maybe Trump is the way. If I had to give her some advice, you know what I'd say? You know, all of her old friends, the Democrats she was hanging around with, what do you think they're going to think of her now that she's come out as a MAGA supporting person? Do you think all of her friends are going to be okay with her? You think they'll invite her to parties

Episode 2983 CWSA 10/09/25

sustainable long-term number. If it is, amazing. I mean it would be beyond my highest expectations but it won't be. Don't expect that. But it's better than not being 3.8 that's for sure. There's a new European startup. Okay. Did you know that Europe had startups? If you heard that there's a European startup that was getting ready to solve some big problem, what would be your first thought? My first thought was, "Nah, no, they won't." There's a reason that there aren't many European startups or I don't think there are any unicorns, you know, the ones that are worth more than a billion, and it has to do with their stultifying regulations and stuff. So basically you get smothered and taxed to death if you're a startup. But this startup called Euclid, according to Dr. for Singularity on X, they're building this massive chip system, he says, that would allow lesser powered chips. I think they're lesser powered. But what it does is use way less power. So what they're doing is building an infrastructure for AI that would be way more power efficient. Now what I've been predicting for a while is that the money involved in running the energy needed for AI is so big, you know, we're talking trillions of dollars, that for sure there will be startups trying to reduce the energy drain for AI and for sure there will be at least incremental improvements, but probably somebody's going to come up with more than an incremental improvement. So my bet is that the big companies will spend a trillion dollars on building out power and some small company will say you can do it for 1 billion now, we solved the energy problem. So I feel like the most successful AI company might be somebody who

Episode 2970 CWSA 09/26/25

ten mentioned as the strongest or one of the strongest candidates for maybe future president. So why in the world would ABC News dredge up a story from 2011 to try to destroy Josh Shapiro? Because it looks like that's the only purpose. Why would the left destroy one of their leading names from the left? Well, here's my belief. All right, this is speculation, but I believe that the real criminal elements in the Democrat party, I mean the super criminals, I'm talking about the Clintons, super criminals as far as I can tell, they are reinstituting their Clinton Global Initiative, which we all believe was a money laundering operation. And in order for that to work again, they would need not just a Democrat in office, but they would need one that they could say, hey, other countries, this president whose office, it's not us, it's not the Clintons, but it's somebody who's so tight with us that we can get them to do some favors if you give us a huge amount of money that we can launder into our own pockets, right? So if the Clinton Global Initiative is starting up again or trying to, that must mean that they've picked somebody they know they can work with if that person becomes president. And here's my speculation. They don't think they can work with Josh Shapiro. They do think they can make a lot of money with Gavin Newsom. So what I'm going to be looking for is to see if the most criminal people, the ones you just know are criminals, are all backing Newsom, because if they do, that would suggest they know that he can be their Biden or their Obama or whatever they need him to be. So I don't think it's a coincidence that ABC News is strangling one of their own. The only reason to do that is if one of their own could beat Newsom in a primary, and Josh Shapiro could beat Newsom in a primary. He does have the ability. So that's what I think. So I think that the power people in the Democrat party have already picked Newsom. It probably won't matter what the public thinks because they will tell the public what to think. That's how it works. They'll just tell him he's the guy. He's the only one that can beat him. And in the meantime, Hillary Clinton says, I think it was yesterday, we have to stop demonizing each other. And then she demonized the Republicans. It's almost, it looks like a joke. I mean it looks like Saturday Night Live or something where she says we have to stop demonizing them. And without taking a breath, she didn't even pause before she demonized them. Incredible. All right, let me give you my strongest opinion on all this rhetoric stuff. And as JD Vance said, I also believe that there are people on the right who say things that go too far and might, but hasn't happened yet, might potentially cause somebody to act in a violent way, and we don't want that. So I'm against that. However, there does seem to be a difference in the rhetoric on the two sides. As I said, calling somebody dumb as a rock doesn't make you want to do anything violent. Saying somebody is Gestapo and they're taking power and they're going to take your democracy definitely makes you think of violence. So I'm going to say that the Democrat leaders are 100% to blame for recent violence against Republicans. Now let me be clear. The way our legal system works is that the people who pulled the trigger are the only ones who can be blamed. But that's because that's the only practical way to run a legal system. You couldn't say, well yeah, he murdered somebody, but in fourth grade he had some bad influences. That doesn't work. The only way you can organize a society is that the person who does the act gets punished. But whoever talked them into it or influenced them or brainwashed them, unless it's really direct and really immediate, doesn't count. They get a pass. Well, as a trained hypnotist who studies persuasion a lot, let me tell you with 100% certainty it is the Democrat leaders that are causing the violence. There's not even the slightest chance that it's any other way. Because do you know what causes action? Ideas. At least complex actions. Simple actions like a reflex, there's not much thinking involved. But a complex action like I'm going to do a plan, I'm going to be in a place, I'll have these assets, I'll do this thing. If it's a complex plan, that only can happen because you have an idea. Let's say the idea is that Hitler has taken over the country. It doesn't have to be a correct idea. It just has to be a full idea in order to get a complex action. Now, there's no exception to that. Can we agree on that? That for a human being to do a complex action, they have to have an idea in their head that matches the complex action. Would you agree? There's no question about that. Now, what causes an idea to be in a head? How many people would have thought, hey, I think I'll climb on a roof and start shooting people, if their entire influence in life had been sitting in a darkened room by themselves? If they had no input from anything, do you think they would say, huh, of all the things I could be doing, I feel like I'll get a gun and climb on a roof and start shooting people? No. There is no way that that complex idea gets in your head without being put there. It has to be put there. You don't go looking for it. It has to be put there. That's the way it all works. It's the way it works on both sides. It's not just a Democrat thing. All of our complex ideas about politics on the right and the left were put there. You don't have an original idea in your head, nor do I. All of our ideas were put there. And so if somebody climbs on a roof and starts shooting, it is a reasonable question: what put that there? Now they might also be crazy, but even crazy people have a wide range of things they could have been doing that day. Why did they pick that one thing? It's because somebody put it there. They put the idea there. And the way you put an idea in people's heads is what? How do you put an idea in somebody's head? Well, sometimes you can show an image, you know, a meme, but mostly in politics with words. And those words are Nazi, Hitler, Gestapo, stealing your democracy, autocrat, oligarch. Oligarch doesn't get you killed. I'll give Bernie credit if I may. Bernie Sanders is sort of, he's always been a mixed bag. He'll do 10 things I hate and then one thing where I'll go, oh, okay, that's actually quite reasonable. One of the things that Bernie Sanders does is he doesn't do this Hitler thing, does he? I don't believe he does. Now it also makes his rhetoric kind of empty. They're an oligarch. Do you climb on a roof to shoot somebody who's an oligarch? Not really. Oligarch would be in the category of dumb as a rock. They both are just insults. Typical. But you don't go kill somebody for being dumb as a rock. You don't kill somebody for being an oligarch. You just don't. But that other stuff, oh yeah, you start making a plan if you hear those other words. So words create ideas. Ideas create actio

Episode 2969 CWSA 09/25/25

ong that even though it's more of a Jewish thing that it's still enough of a Christian thing that as long as it's a sincere religious action then it's laudable you know you would actually say I like that I like that that our leaders are religious and taking that stuff seriously. And I also like that the US is respecting Israel in that way. All right, here's my problem. If you look at this from a persuasion perspective, it is a plus. A plus. If you can get somebody to do that on camera, put on the little Jewish hat and touch the wall and act like it's magic, you know, as religion works. You have turned somebody into your, because that is such powerful persuasion that you will not know it, but you will be bonded to the Israel experience in a way that is not illegal. It's not even immoral or unethical. It's perfectly allowed, but it's really powerful. I object not because it's immoral, unethical, none of those reasons. It's not illegal, nothing like that. It just works too well. And when I see Marco Rubio go over there and basically look like Netanyahu's, I don't say to myself, oh no, this is just ceremonial and it has nothing to do with the work, you know, he's just showing respect. No, I look at a guy who's been hypnotized essentially. So to allow yourself to go into that situation, it's just a terrible look. Terrible look. But from Israel's point of view, brilliant. It's good for their self-interest. It's good for bonding with the United States. It's genius really. I mean, it's just really strong persuasion. A plus. But for us, I would say if you're going to do it, don't do it on camera. That's probably impossible. But I would have no problem if they did it privately. But you put that on camera and it just looks like our people bowing to Netanyahu. Not cool. Absolutely not cool with me. All right. But all legal, all ethical, all moral, you know, none of the standard complaints. It's just better for Israel than it is for us. So from an American self-interest perspective, I hate it. And I would encourage nobody to ever do that again. All right. Except privately. Privately is fine. You know, if it's something you wanted to do because it is a historical site. I can imagine a lot of people wanting to experience that, just don't put it on camera. Russia's getting provocative and doing a bunch of war games near the border of the NATO countries. They're testing drones and they might be testing some defenses. And I don't know if that's preparation for something to come or they're just rattling their swords for effect. We'll see. Apparently meanwhile Ukraine has continued to attack Russia's energy facilities. So they just torched the Russian Kirishi refinery and they took out a chemical plant a thousand miles inside Russia and they got an oil supply line. So it does seem that Ukraine is going hard at taking out the energy infrastructure in Russia. And it seems to me that the people trying to take something out usually have a big advantage over the people trying to protect them, especially since they're spread out all over the place and the drone weapons are hard to stop in the first place. Unless you had serious national defense basically everywhere. So that would be hard to stop. So we'll see what happens there. Meanwhile, the Sinaloa cartel worldwide operations. NewsNation is acting like the US is taking a big step toward dismantling the entire Sinaloa cartel. Now I told you that there was this major seven foreign region operation in which 617 Sinaloa cartel got arrested in various countries but apparently there are tens of thousands of them in 40 countries. 617 people not even a drop in the bucket. But and then there's some reporting by NewsNation that the US is working with Mexico to do this. I don't believe that. Do you believe that Mexico is cooperating against the cartels? The only way it makes sense is if their government is in the pocket of a different cartel and the only thing they're doing is getting rid of the competition for the one that's their cartel. That's the only way I can understand what's happening. Otherwise, I would assume Mexico is not helping at all, and we're just pretending they are. And then apparently a bunch of stealth jets have been delivered now to Puerto Rico. Meaning that there are jets, but they're based in Puerto Rico. And that would be getting ready to put some pressure on Venezuela in ways that we don't quite know. But that's a lot of firepower for that part of the world. So I presume that's partly to scare Venezuela and partly because there's good chance they're going to use them and they're really good ones. Well, Conor McGregor is, as you know, running for president or wants to run for president in Ire

Episode 2958 CWSA 09/14/25