3/3/2023 FF: Radicalizing Your Audience

Alen’s Live Call Notes : Google Doc URL

The Call Recording : Replay URL

Opening The Call: Initial Discussion and Warmup

3:05 - The Base Marketing Assumption

A pitfall many copywriters fall into is using the “Agora Assumption” in their marketing;
that the customer does not want what you're selling and must be argued into buying
submission in order to convert.

Alen flips this around - he assumes the positive: they want and need this (because the
product is genuinely good and transformative) so he can write copy that is on their side
rather than argumentative or against them, like talking to a lawyer.

Working to acquire and nurture relationships to build strong relationships over time, is
much more profitable than “wrestling” customers into submission one time, which
usually does not turn into a long-term relationship with the brand.

7:20 - Subtleties With Major Impact When Presenting Offer Options

Looking at the product stacks someone brought him, Alen noted that the only
difference between the options in the “self-sort” presentation was the price and title -
the imagery was all the same and that erodes the “difference,” making them all seem
equally valuable and therefore making the cheapest option the best deal as far as price
for value exchange.

Instead, ensure the middle (highest price) option pops with larger imagery, color
variation, borders, and so on to better communicate the different and increasing value
of each option. The options have to be perceived as different in order to make the more
expensive choice feel like the best tradeoff.
9:00 - Reaction = Lack of Choice

If you’re reacting to the environment/actions of someone else, you don’t really have a
“choice” in your response - you’ve given it up by not exercising it. This is the difference
between reacting and RESPONDING, where you pause and choose whether and how
you will respond, rather than reacting without intention and allowing subconscious
beliefs and ego to drive you. You can only be creative in the non-reactive,
non-defensive state.

This is why direct response works - the audience is compelled to respond and isn’t in
control of the process.

12:35 - Safety Through Rules and Structure: Why Change Is So Hard

We don’t like rules and structures for ourselves as much as we like those rules for
OTHERS because then we know what to expect from others and won’t be hurt by them.
We can predict how the majority of people will behave and react, so we feel safe.
(My/my rule structures especially.)

When you change beliefs, rules, and mental structures, your brain cells that support
them actually die - this is why we are so resistant to change. To create new beliefs we
have to create new neural pathways and new neural cells altogether. So whenever
we’re changing beliefs, our current beliefs - supported by living cells in our minds - are
trying to protect themselves and survive, because they have to be removed for new
ones to take their place. This is also why change is often not instantaneous, and it can
take time to change habits and become comfortable with new behavior, beliefs, and so
on.

18:10 - Genesis Beliefs: Layering Change

Genesis beliefs are identity-level beliefs that are foundational to all others - if we work
here and change at this level, the rest collapse and change very quickly. Otherwise, we
often approach from the top down in layers to “loosen” and uncover the root beliefs,
changing them on increasingly deeper levels over longer timelines like peeling an onion.

18:51 - Wes Shares Takeaways and Examples of Him Noticing/Using The Concepts
We’re Learning In His Own Life

For example, the absolution of responsibility that comes through when we discover
someone who has something we desire (or told we SHOULD desire, have, etc) only has it
due to unrealistic resources or unnatural interventions unavailable or undesirable to
most of us - such as fitness influencers who are revealed to be on steroids.

23:44 - Ali Asks: Some People Are More Willing Or Flexible To Change Their Beliefs
In General - Is This Due To A Different “Meta Belief”?

Yes, but it’s more so a container of safety - they feel an innate or stronger sense of
safety in the world, through themselves; as a result they have more resources and
openness to change/kill off old beliefs and neural pathways because their sense of
safety is not impacted when they do.

Now we’ve never “seen” ourselves truly - we can’t pop out and look at ourselves as
someone else - we’ve only seen reflections and photos; this means we also can’t look at
ourselves objectively and see how strong and capable we are either. This makes it very
difficult to tune into a strong, internal sense of safety if we aren’t raised with one.

Wealthy families tend to provide this sense of security and safety in which children
grow up believing that the world is generally safe and they will be okay - they have a
familial safe space to fall back on. As a result, they often don’t have as many limiting
beliefs and can be more flexible in their personal beliefs - they have always had the
resources to do so and have no reason to believe otherwise. If you don’t have wealth or
other resources to maintain safety, it’s much harder to risk belief change without
sacrificing your sense of security/safety.

27:56 - Phillip Shares: Trait Openness (Big 5) Also Helps With Belief Shifting

Trait openness in the personality is not very common however, so most people don’t
have this natural leg up as far as being open to and searching out alternate
perspectives and data to continually update your beliefs with.

It’s also easier to change beliefs with strong/loving relationships providing oxytocin in
the brain, which buffers against the negative feelings and impacts of changing
beliefs/neural networks. This is why building relationships with our audiences and
making them feel good is so important to genuinely shifting their beliefs and helping
them actually transform.

Radicalizing Markets Begins

30:07 - Recap: In Order To Change Something/Do Something New, We Have To
Admit A “Lack”: The Difficulty Of This Is Proportional To The Strength of The “Ego
Structure”

This is true of buying something, changing our behavior, habits, etc. So we need to be
aware of what we’re subconsciously asking people to admit about themselves/their
situation when we’re asking someone to buy from us. One choice admits another,
previous or pre-existing choice.

The ego responds to anything that requires them to change to get the outcome, so any
market that has the potential to trigger ego-defensiveness requires the absolution of
responsibility, excuses, and blame to work. This is what creates the safety needed for
the ego to admit what needs to be admitted to justify/enable the purchase.

There are always two decisions: to buy (conversion rates) and not to buy (inverted
conversion, non-conversion rates)

When it comes to marketing we often find the buying decision rate as a result of our
efforts to be 1-3%, which means 97-99% of people do not buy from us - meaning we’re
actually better at getting people to not buy rather than getting them to buy. (And we
need to be aware of our own egos reacting when we think about this!)

35:50 - All Buying Decisions Are Made In The Feeling State

The feeling state comes out of the subconscious mind, so when we have low conversion
rates this tells us that we are typically not working on/reaching the subconscious mind
at all. (Perhaps it can be said that we only convert at 1-3%, only 1-3% of what we’re
doing is reaching the subconscious effectively).

Any copy that goes into the mind through conscious awareness is going to get
criticized, critiqued, and judged by the ego (the mechanism by which our mind works to
keep us safe, existing between the subconscious and the conscious.)

39:48 - Generating The Deepest Rapport

The key to accessing the subconscious mind is to reconcile what they see and what
they feel - if this doesn’t happen, there’s no rapport and no trust established. This is
also why any guru/celebrity has more non-fans than they have fans - we just don’t
“see” this because the non-fans are quiet and outside our awareness. Without this
rapport built through understanding and connection of their felt experience, the
subconscious mind “bucks” and forms a negative opinion about the person/product.
(You don’t understand me!)

When it comes to actually communicating intentionally with the subconscious, there

are two things you can do: make suggestions or make commands. Because the
subconscious mind is there to protect us, “force” or using “commands” triggers defense
and rejection.

Instead, we need to make them WANT to buy instead of commanding them to (i.e.
selling them); this is how we can raise conversion rates beyond the usual 1-3%.

44:11 - Learning From Feminine vs. Masculine Communication: Suggestion vs.

Commands

Pure feminine energy feels very accepting to those who are interacting with it - it’s not
threatened/defensive, so you don’t feel threatened or defensive when you’re interacting
with it. Feminine energy naturally helps masculine energy feel safe, which is good for
BOTH of them - allowing both to relax and lower defenses. This is the energy we need
to use to lower defenses and connect with our audiences.

Women tend to operate on suggestive language; most won’t tell you what to do, what
to think, impose, or anything like that unless rapport/trust is already built or they are
asked to. Even then, they are often more “qualifying” or “contextual” (my truth, my
experience; yours may be different). Men tend to operate on commanding language.

This is a big reason why men will usually let women into their private mental world more
so than other men - it feels safer and less risky because it’s suggestive, not
commanding, so it is INVITED inside. Other men are also commanding and this can
result in conflict/competition. In order for something to change something, it has to go
inside - you cannot change things from the outside. So a thought needs to get inside
the subconscious mind before it can create/enable change - to do that, it needs to be
accepted.

The 1-3% of people who do accept commands are generally in low emotional states
with no resources to defend themselves or be responsible for themselves - these are
heavy customers.

So we need to use suggestive language, not commanding language - we cannot

command someone else’s subconscious, it has to self-command; When we make
suggestions, the suggestion that is accepted becomes a self-command.
Modify your language from command to suggestion with phrases such as:
- You may consider
- Just think about
- Have you ever thought about
- Do you know that
- Etc…

55:50 - Suggestions vs. Rules

In the process of being invited and accepted inside, suggestive language will work
better because you’re not imposing rules which require cell/ego death. Instead of
saying, “you have to do this” - a rule - try, “you may want to consider doing this.”

Example: “Can you get me a glass of water?” (“Nah, get it yourself” or “Why can’t you
get it?” are common reactions, even when not vocalized); instead, try “Do you think you
could get me a glass of water?” Everyone thinks they can do it if it's a simple task, and
now it’s not an imposition so much as an invitation to prove they can do it. So people
are more receptive and will engage with this suggestion more willingly/positively.

This way, you can have softness that is less threatening to the subconscious and opens
it up, so you can later combine suggestions AND commands while keeping the
subconscious in a receptive and open state.

You're not meant to know _______

Because if you did, it would mean _______
And that’s why you haven’t _______
So if you ever felt _______
That’s why _______
So now you know the reason why you’ve never been able to _______
And now that you do know this, the question is _______

This is done when we are describing what they see/feel and are explaining it; the
rapport-building and absolution of responsibility phase.

1:01:22 - Combining Suggestion With Images

This allows you to elicit emotions, especially when the images are the outcomes your
audience wants.
If you try to go the command route, you trigger defenses and typically anger; anger
occurs when there is something trying to enter that we haven’t invited in - something
we don’t accept or want - which makes us feel under “attack.”

1:02:34- Transitioning To Command: Creating New Rules

The key is knowing when the subconscious mind WANTS the command vs a suggestion.
Once the suggestions have been accepted and the rules are loosened up and
re-evaluated, THEN you can issue the commands.

Example: “You should consider thinking in economics instead of copy because FB

doesn’t care what %s are, they only care about what you can pay to get the customer…
And when you think in economics, you think in AOV contributions and you can really
scale offers.”

(suggestions made, and accepted, now we segue to commands)

“This is why you HAVE TO use economics…”

1:06:00 - Radicalizing The Market: The Savior

The best way to radicalize your market is by making them a victim (us vs. them): “They
don’t want you to get rich,” “The matrix is against you,” “Colleges are making you blah
blah blah.”

We can see this in society right now with the “Savior Complex” that is widely used by
people like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, Tony Robbins, etc. Society only welcomes
“saviors” when they feel like they are victims - because only victims need saving. You
can’t have one without the other. What are all “big name” politicians but saviors?

The sticking point is, which comes first? This is a chicken and egg conundrum and could
go either way - and you can go about it from either direction.

What’s interesting is that all saviors are “different” from the people that are victimizing
them, yet they are the ones who are really victimizing them. You can’t be a victim unless
you accept being a victim; this happens during the absolution of responsibility as we
can’t be victims if we take responsibility for ourselves. When we absolve ourselves of
responsibility, we shift into “victim mentality” and open the doors for the “savior” to
come in (the Authority Handover).
A lot of empires fell because people inside the empire opened the doors for the
conquerors; in our case YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, etc. Elon Musk uses this concept
heavily when marketing: Tesla with the mission of “saving the planet,” with SpaceX,
“save humanity by going to Mars,” with Twitter, “save free speech.”

He’s essentially victimizing the entire planet in order to create a “big mission” requiring a
savior (him), and all stockholders and shareholders are in cahoots with the
savior/victim paradigm.

This is the basis of creating a movement. (More on this at the end)

1:16:02 - Ali Asks: How Does This Connect To Suggestions vs. Commands?

You can’t achieve this transition into “victim” with “commands” - you can’t force people
to see/accept this using forceful statements or commands; you first have to use
suggestion to move them into a safe/relaxed space to consider this new and alternate
perspective.

Example:

Bill Gates invested $500m into X company that produced Y, and that company made
300 b and now people are sick.

He also invested 1b in India that did blah blah blah

So you may want to consider that he’s not on your side…

And in fact, you may be at risk

1:20:00 - The Double Bind Of “Helpless” and “Hopeless” Beliefs

Why do we need to save the planet? Because there is global warming and since you
can’t do anything about it you have helpless and hopeless limiting beliefs triggered at
the same time - a double bind that locks them into a victim state. Because they don’t
have and also can’t get the resources they need.

This is how we then amplify and pull out emotions like rage; the safe space is
threatened and they feel like they’re on the “losing” side because there is always a
winner and a loser (Hollywood story plots) - “these people are winning at YOUR
expense.” This implies something is being taken from them.
So in an age of mass content, the only thing that stands out is extreme content;
polarized and political marketing - folks who are genuinely in the middle or more
“moderate” don’t get heard through the noise.

You can create a “victim” in any circumstance - because the “winner” or “victimizer” can
be other people, things, systems, and so on. This makes people feel seen and validated
in their most vulnerable states which generates massive rapport and trust.

1:24:50 - To Remove Limitation Is To Remove (Internal) Blame

This is how you get them to change their story and start the shifting of their identity.

Victim mentality is victim identity.

If you are a victim that means that you are looking backwards not forward. Because we
cannot change anything about the past, focusing here means we can’t change the
present or the future either - only continue recreating the same past. The reason you
can’t look forward is because you believe that someone/something has power over you.
That is the difference between the victim and the victor.

Almost everyone in society is told what they can’t do MUCH more often than they are
told what they CAN do - and so before they can feel something is possible they have to
first imagine it is possible. This happens when they are told a story that someone else
did it (someone similar) with proof. This is how you remove blame. Once you remove
blame, you can pull them out of the victim identity - empowerment - and restore their
access to freedom and self-responsibility through capability (through your product).

Blame is justification for one’s limitations; if you have no one to blame, you no longer
have justification for your current circumstances (if you’re unhappy with them) do you?

1:27:57 - “Heroes Are The Pawns of Kings”

The concept of victimization has been weaponized in modern society: so you can do
things “for others,” as long as you deem them victims in order to justify your means. This
is how dictators come to power, hold, keep and gain power.

If you go against that philosophy, it now looks and feels like you're going against the
victims - so it's a checkmate move. And this is happening everywhere now. Think about
the implications of this strategic position in political, social, business, corporate,
everywhere.

Those who deem themselves the victim will join the parade and amplify such acts and
the act goes on and on, so the corporations and politicians are using this as a strategic
tool of market dominance.

If you study history, this is how every dictator came to power...to overthrow the existing
“oppressors.” That is how the whole political game is being played now, and it's really
interesting because using this strategy, it's super easy to BIND someone in a position
that is difficult to leave without sacrificing social approval or “morality.”

Alen got this whole thing from studying heroes and such and this quote: "Heroes are the
pawns of kings." It's a powerful strategy that is extremely hard to fight against because
if you fight against it, you feed it and increase resistance against yourself. It's the
checkmate position, or “pendulums.”

1:31:15 - Recap Of The Call: Victimize to Radicalize

You essentially victimize the audience by externalizing blame, which puts them in a
resourceless state and an unsafe space at the mercy of or oppressed by
something/someone else. The only way to get back to safety and resources is through
our product or movement, which now gives back the “power” you just removed -
because they didn’t see themselves as victims until you suggested they might be -
making them feel that YOU empowered them…

Generating love (Mechanism of Love) and loyalty to you/the movement/etc.

Q&A and Discussion Begins

1:34:29 - Ali Asks: How Does This All Tie Together With Belief Change/Exchange
and The Other Concepts?

Beliefs are clumped together - such as the way we clump capability and behavior. For
example in the “guns are bad” argument, there is the capability (potential) and the
behavior (the action that makes the potentiality real) - so the behavior is the true
problem but it’s wrapped up together with the capability which allows the blame to be
moved to the capability of the guns, not the choices/behavior of people using them.
It’s much more difficult to victimize people when these concepts/ideas are broken
down into component parts, because clumping the capability and behavior distorts the
perception of it - specifically the intensity/magnitude of the threat - since capability
represents the potential, which is almost always much greater than what manifests in
reality. (The basis of slippery slope arguments)

1:39:00 - Ali Asks: How To Apply In Marketing More Directly?

Example: Mass market biz opp

The enemy is the system, which is rigged against them - it has the capability to do a lot
of damage. However if it DOES do a lot of damage, it actually harms itself through
harming you - since it relies on you and others like you to keep it going - and therefore
actual potentiality of harm is actually MUCH less than the overall capability for harm
when you zoom out to the wider context and look at the problem at the component
level in terms of how the system functions.

So if you want to victimize your market, focus on the capability for harm and amplify
that, while minimizing and disconnecting the behavior required for that to actually
happen (which tends to reduce the real potential for harm through multiple conditions
that are less likely to actually be met). This implies lack of control over our behavior -
which enables the absolution of responsibility.

This is what then motivates them to be “saved” because before you do this, they don’t
need “saving” - they can or “should” save themselves. You essentially convince them
they don’t have this power and sell empowerment back to them.

This is what radicalization does - and it’s also why radicalized markets are angry (result
of having something TAKEN from us, or forced on us).

*This needs to be used with care and positive intention to genuinely help - these
examples and explanations help us understand what is happening around us and also to
us if we aren’t aware.

1:45:44 - Idan Asks: Winner, Loser, Victim Clarification?

In reality, the truth is always somewhere in the middle of two extremes, however, in
society, everything is made out to be very “digital” or black/white with no middle
ground.
Winners vs. losers, good guys vs. bad guys, graduate vs. dropout, etc.

This push to black/white thinking or perception is what allows for mass victimization
and radicalization in order to control and manipulate people in groups. Because without
the loser, you can’t have the winner. This motivates winners to maintain the system AND
feel justified in their success, while losers become angrier and more motivated to
become winners themselves - ultimately supporting the system because once they win,
they feel entitled to that win and want to maintain it just like everyone else.

If everyone's a winner, no one is a winner - the loser is required to make winning

possible; this is how the system self-perpetuates, even when people recognize it’s a
problem. Nobody wants to be the loser - we are more “loss averse” than we are “gain
motivated.”

1:48:50 - Idan Asks: What About When People Suggest Things and I Don’t Accept Or
Even Entertain It?

Plenty of suggestions are made every day to us and about us, but we ignore most of
them. What people respond to is what they feel they lack - we only respond when we
relate to what is assumed to be missing or lacking in the suggestion. If we don’t
respond, this is not something we feel is “missing” or “lacking.”

Accepting victimization also reduces our risk - the leader/one who goes first is taking
the most risk so we often INVITE this process as it reduces our own risk while making us
feel better (temporarily); we respond to and give energy to the “leader” or “savior” in
the hopes they’ll change it for us, and in the event it fails - THEY fail, not us; we stay
safe.

1:54:40 - Zell Asks: The Hopeless and Helpless Double Bind?

This happens by creating statements where there is no “out” except yours. If this is true,
that must be true too now - and that means you don’t have the capability to do
anything about it. This causes FEAR and moves them into a position of both Helpless
AND Hopeless. They don’t have capability AND they cannot get capability either - it’s
being withheld from them EXCEPT if they go through you.
1:55:50 - Brad Asks: Is There A Way To Use This In The Health Space For
Practitioners?

Practice owners exist in the larger economy of credit and debt - they are
limited/controlled by this system in terms of what is possible for them with their
practice.

So you first create/describe a situation they relate to - such as “you are in debt” - and
then you explain this situation to them by blaming others and creating them as a victim.
We all exist in the same larger systems, so there is always something bigger than us to
blame.

You can use current events from the larger economy to explain their struggles - such as
increasing debt reducing the number of patients with cash on hand to pay and forcing
more practitioners to go through insurance (which is paying out less and less as well).
This means margins and circulating cash are shrinking for everyone involved -
practitioners and insurance companies - and competition is increasing for cash pay,
which only makes things harder and suggests the future will be even WORSE, not better.
There’s nothing they can do about this (victim identity activated) since they can’t
control the economy. So knowing this, you HAVE to do X (thing we are offering to help
with) in order to escape this negative future possibility.

2:02:40 - Isaac Asks: Is This Understanding Correct?

By victimizing the resource, they connect the dots and become victims by association
instead of feeling attacked themselves, since they value/desire/need that resource
themselves. This is how we get them to make themselves the victim or circumstances -
this is why we have to remove blame and shift it to the resources/system/etc.

And this is how we can work with high emotional states - since they are already more
resourced, we victimize/threaten the resource itself which shifts them back into lower
emotional states/unsafe spaces due to the possibility of loss.

We all exist within larger layers of systems - community, city, region, state, market,
country, economy, and so on.

So you can always victimize at a higher, controlling layer/system level in order to

victimize everyone/anyone below or within it. This is working on the environmental
level, which is the most powerful way we can destabilize and create unsafe spaces they
want to move away from in order to motivate buying behavior/change.
2:05:43 - Jure Asks: How Do You Do This For Less “Dramatic” Offers Where Stakes
Are Lower, Such As The Guitar Teaching Niche?

You victimize their ability to acquire the skill/thing they want as a result of the larger
understanding/perception related to it. So the traditional methods of teaching
music/guitar: “the reason you haven’t been able to learn to play the guitar is
(victimization statements).”

This motivates them to change their behavior to become empowered to escape the
victim state - because it’s no longer their fault or something wrong with them, making
their desired outcome possible again - and become a victor with your help/through
your product.

2:08:04 - Brad Asks: Is This Ultimately About Accelerating The Emotional Impact
and Intensity To Motivate Action?

Energy moves whether people are aware of it or not - so the more aware we make
people, the more time moves, the more energy they have to participate and make a
change. We are motivated by what is in our awareness. So this is all to serve the
purpose of heightening their awareness to such a point that they are motivated to act
in order to achieve/get the outcome they want. This process allows us to get into their
minds and get them really thinking and considering these things, which creates and
builds the thought energy, resources, and action potential needed for someone to go
through the change process.

The more frequently and intensely they interact with the message, the faster and more
powerfully the audience will radicalize - this is why people like Jordan Peterson
leverage recent events to explain their beliefs and justify their
suggestions/commands/rule structures.

2:12:47 - Associative State Openings

The closer you can be to their experience, the more real this feels for them and the more
effective it is as a result. This is about what you see through their eyes, feel through
their experience, and explain through their circumstances, environments, and
events/behavior.
2:14:12 - Abdullah Asks: Applying Suggestive Language?

Qualifying language creates suggestion versus command in terms of the impact on the
audience. You could, can, may, etc - softeners.

2:15:12 - Bob Asks: What Kind Of Practical Ways Can Someone Practice These
Techniques To Gain Mastery Like You?

Repetition of anything leads to skill development - the more frequent the repetition, the
faster and deeper the skills will develop.

This is why copywriters actually take so long to get good - they repeat/practice at a
slower rate due to the nature of the work (writing one sales letter per month, etc.) So it’s
often easier to learn copywriting if you do sales first because the rate of repetition is
faster in sales, and then you can apply those skills to copy.

Intentionality and awareness combined with repetition goes a long way; try to apply
this in your interactions with people in the world as much as possible in order to get the
repetition in faster - then reflect on how things went in order to improve your next
iteration.

Marketing is nothing more than communicating with other people. And the only power
in communication is through suggestion - we have no power to control other people
beyond making suggestions in ways that are easier for them to choose to accept.

Most people communicate to the face, fewer still communicate to the conscious mind,
and very few communicate to the subconscious, where we can have the most influence.

2:22:38 - Three Levels of Language

Apart from commanding and suggestive language, there is also submissive language.
Men tend to struggle with submissive and suggestive language as they are socialized to
use commanding language more often.

Submissive - Asking for permission

● Please
● May I
● Would you please do that
● Excuse me
● Thank you
Suggestive - It’s up to them, they have choice here
● You may consider
● Just think about
● Have you ever thought about
● Do you know that
● May I suggest something
● Etc...

Commanding - Telling them what to do without permission

● You should
● You have to
● Do this
● Take that

2:26:54- Idan Summarizes His Understanding So Far For Clarification

You give voice to their fear and experience, the types of feelings and thoughts they
have but aren’t comfortable/courageous enough to say themselves because they feel
alone in that experience or that they may be to blame.

This allows them to absolve themselves of responsibility and feel better about it, not
alone or the problem, and they in turn follow you as the leader who gives them
permission/validation to feel and think this way - to NOT have to change, to NOT be
wrong, to NOT be alone, etc.

This is the basis of racism, anti-anything, etc. - the projection and externalization of
blame which absolves us of responsibility.

If we all took personal responsibility for our own responses and reality, the world would
be a better place.

2:30:00 - Ali Asks: Is Suggestive Better Because Commanding Language Has An

Implied Consequence?

It’s about rules - you cannot create a new rule without breaking an old one; these are
the consequences. So when we command people with new rules, we’re breaking THEIR
rules and putting them in an unsafe space by doing so, making US the source of
discomfort.
With suggestive language, they accept and CHOOSE to adjust their rules, and the
“enemy” that makes them a victim (which motives the choice to change their rules to
escape) is the source of discomfort - and they are then even more motivated to move
away from those rules/circumstances by following US, because we make them feel
good.

The choice to change rules is made easier by externalizing the change - THEY don’t
have to change, their resources do, and we’re enabling that. The product provides new
resources to fuel the change, not them personally - the circumstances are changing,
without them having to change personally.

Sell the change, don’t require them to change to get the outcome. You’re changing their
outcomes, and therefore how they feel - not them.

2:35:20 - Jure Asks: When Doing This In Another Language Can You Do This With
The Same Impact?

Yes - human emotion is human emotion; these are shared experiences that are common
to the human experience. Language is just a representation of human experience - so
as long as we can meet them in this experience utilizing these concepts, it doesn’t
matter what language we’re working in. The subconscious mind works in images
anyway - this is why books and movies can be translated into other languages. It’s a
matter of practicing and applying the structure.

English is a very material language so you can describe what is being SEEN more easily
- which is key to reaching the subconscious since it operates in imagery - but
describing the experience is more difficult. In older and other languages you may have
more words to accurately describe experiences, but not so much the material world -
making the visual aspect harder to execute.

However, the more you focus on just writing to have fun and describe/channel the
feeling, the easier this will be, as opposed to trying to find the perfect words from the
critical, thinking mind.

When you have fun, the subconscious mind is doing the work - the subconscious can
speak to the subconscious.
2:43:50 - Alen’s Process For Writing

Have fun with it, and shift into the subconscious - this comes from knowing how to
collapse conscious thought and generate feelings on command, but that requires a
separate call.

To think in feelings you need to learn how to think in images.

2:47:17 - Zell Asks: Is “If” Suggestive or Commanding?

“If” is often used to transition or combine commands with suggestions. When used in
questions, it’s more suggestive because it’s used to elicit a response or thought, and
when used in statements it’s more commanding but softens the command with a
condition (so it’s not as strong an imposition and they still have a choice).

Suggestive language describes the activity the mind does when evaluating whether to
accept information: seeing, thinking, considering, evaluating, looking, hearing,
knowing, noticing, etc. This activity is instant given enough images and evidence, at the
subconscious level.

This is the difference between processing and thinking. Note that it’s ACTIVE - i.e. -ing
verbs. It’s active because you can’t stop thinking/processing - this is ALWAYS occurring
in the brain, because if it’s not we’re dead.

If/then statements work to create new structures and build new rules or pathways in
the mind.

2:56:29 - The Whole Mind Is Defensive

The mind is naturally defensive whenever we’re interacting with others or the world
directly, and response is the result of that defense being triggered - you can’t have a
response without a threat, and a threat is often anything new/novel to the mind. This is
why surface level DR is actually antithetical to what actually needs to happen to
convince or “convert” someone - direct response is really direct threat.

2:59:05 - Victor Asks: Reviewing The Concept For Clarity and Accuracy

This is about resources; the victim and the victor have different access to the
resources, and the victor has access to the resources at the expense of the victim - it
was TAKEN from them. So you blame this loss/taking of the resources to remove their
capability, describing the future that occurs as a result of this to induce unsafety that
now needs to be resolved… motivating action.

In order for the ego to justify where it is, it needs a reason for this outcome - the reason
cannot be us/itself, because that means we have to change which causes cell
death/ego death. The safe reason is therefore that we are a victim of
something/someone else - a system that TAKES these resources from us (because if we
give them willingly, we aren’t a victim).

Because this system is to blame, we hate this system and we want to rebel against it to
take our resources/choices back - and the only way to do so is to buy the product
being presented to us which gives capability/empowerment to do so.

This is how we can free ourselves from the circumstances we’re in without having to
change/blame ourselves (therefore without triggering ego defense) which allows us to
feel GOOD to do so instead of a threat (the admission of lack internally).

So we start by suggesting alternative perspectives that explain the lack through

external blame in order to open up new possibilities in a nonthreatening/energy
intensive way. Once blame is removed from them, we can then “command” their next
action to restore safety/capability - if we want this outcome, we must then do this new
thing/accept these new rules to get it.

3:06:49 - Idan Shares: Epiphany Around Worthiness

Start by asking what you want, then pause and disconnect from the thoughts and
follow the feelings instead. Following through his feelings and the related experiences,
he was able to find the comparisons that were fueling his sense of inferiority and
unworthiness, in order to reframe them and address them to collapse the limiting belief.
Now he is able to see how incredible he is and that he has everything he needs, feels
more confident, and accepts himself.

3:12:04 - Devin Asked: How To Create A Movement?

Movements need something to move against, in order for those within to move FOR
something (gain or avoid further loss). You need the victimization in order to create the
motivation to move against/for something that is oppressing and victimizing the group.

3:13:16 - You Can Only Make As Much Money As You Feel Worthy Of: Product
Permission To Feel Worthy
In DR it’s often difficult to feel worthy of more success/wealth because there’s no love
in the product(s) we sell. And if we know that, we know the product isn’t that great or
special, and we know deep down it’s not that valuable - so we don’t feel worthy of the
money we want to be making or may already be making.

When we put love into the product and it creates amazing transformation, we naturally
feel worthy of the money that results because we feel good about what we’re doing -
so starting with the product first mentality and ensuring we’re selling quality can solve a
lot of these problems with worthiness in business.

3:15:52 - Abdullah Asks: What About Doubts In The Value of What You Can Create
Stemming From an Existing Lack of Worthiness? What Else Can You Do To Maintain
Confidence In Your Capability and Value?

Abdullah started thinking about the things he’s already sold to people to great
effect/results - he was able to use these as evidence and proof of the value of his work
and what he can share.

“You don’t have to change a million lives - you just have to change one life, a million
times.”

Use set theory to break down the magnitude/size of what you want to accomplish into
smaller chunks/activities based on what feels easy/possible for you (what you’re
already capable of or have done before).

Ask yourself if you can change one life - chances are the answer is yes, there’s someone
you can help. If there’s one person you can help, there are more - and you just need to
do it again and again; this is easier to do than changing a million lives, which feels
heavy and daunting.

The first person whose life the product has to change is yours.

This is the ultimate proof for the mind, which cements the value in your own mind and
gives visceral evidence for the possibility your product creates. Use your own products
- if they’re good enough for you, they’re good enough for other people too.
3:21:27 - Jure Shares: He’s Afraid To Tell People How Successful His School Is - How
To Overcome This And/Or Why?

Are you the best because you’re the biggest, or are you the biggest because you’re the
best? If you’re the biggest because you’re the best, you have nothing to fear and feel
secure in your success.