g obscure to being fairly common such that Charlie Sheen would just have that as a go-to.

I've told you before that one of the things I do is try to track my own influence on events. And one of the ways I do it is by tracking uncommon word usage. And hypnotize is sort of the word I introduced about 10 years ago talking about persuasion and whatnot. And so I asked Grok, and I've asked other AIs this, but I had not asked Grok, if I personally was the reason that hypnotized is a common word where it used to not be common. And with a few follow-up questions, Grok did say that I'm responsible for creating a narrative of Trump being persuasive. That is the common way we see him today. And they actually credited me for that change. A change from looking at policy when you're talking about politics to looking at persuasion. And it mentioned my book Win Bigly and it said I had relentlessly hammered on it. And then Grok said that what I did for the narrative is that I gave people, this is Grok's wording, I gave people a vocabulary to understand Trump as a persuader. And if you have a vocabulary for something, that's a way of saying you have a narrative or a framework for understanding things. And then as new events happen, you can attach it to the framework and that would be called a narrative. A way of seeing the information as opposed to the information. The information is attached to the narrative. The narrative is the way you interpret it. Right?

So apparently, at least according to Grok, I changed the narrative from being the common narrative of policy and I don't know, character, the things we would normally talk about with politicians to one where people understand it as a persuasion framework. And apparently that's me. I seem to have changed the entire way that people look at politics. So you can have a different opinion and believe that I was just describing something that was there anyway. But what was there anyway is that there was always persuasion. I didn't invent that. But what I invented was the narrative of seeing it through that lens. And I think I actually did that. And when I see Charlie Sheen using the word hypnotized, and I know that that would have been an obscure use of the word 10 years ago, which is exactly when I started talking about this and talking about persuasion and Trump, I think that's me. I think that he would not have used the word hypnotized if he had not been opening his eyes in a world that I had partly created.

I'm kind of curious if you're buying this at all. Are you buying this? How I'm looking at your comments now. How many of you believe that I made a big enough difference that it changed the entire way people look at politics all the way through to affecting Charlie Sheen's choice of words? Do you think that's credible? I'm looking at your comments. Most of you think it's credible. And I would bet that the longer you've been watching my podcasts, the more credible it seems. Now, some of that is the documentary effect. So beware. Beware. If you're watching my content and you're not seeing anything else, that's probably not good enough. You probably need to see the other argument from stuff I do too. So it's not just about me. Let's just say I'm part of the documentary effect. So beware and be skeptical of everything, including me.

All right. We'll give you some persuasion lessons as we go here today. So are you following the story that the Washington Post has this exclusive story? The Washington Post, the one that is usually accused of being a CIA tool. Maybe. I mean they're accused of that. It's an allegation, but the Washington Post has a story that allegedly, and I believe this is whistleblowers. The Washington Post and whistleblowers. If you didn't even know what the story was about, would you trust it? It's the Washington Post and it's based on whistleblowers. That's pretty low credibility right there. That's pretty low. Doesn't mean it's false. It could be true, but if you were going to sort of handicap how likely it was and the only thing you knew about it was that there were whistleblowers, nah, it's not quite good enough.

But let me tell you the story if you haven't heard it. So the accusation is that at the very first Venezuelan drug boat that our military blew up that there were a couple of survivors from the attack and that the order went out to kill them all, you know, quote, kill them all and then there was a second strike that finished them off. Now, that I believe that would be a war crime if true. Now, at the same time that you've got the six Democrats, the seditious six, suggesting that the military should not follow what would be illegal orders. This would probably be an illegal order if it really happened. And if it really happened is the big part of the question.

So do you think it's a coincidence that the Washington Post, allegedly a vehicle used by the CIA and deep state for their messaging, that they have a story with whistleblowers and it happens to perfectly match the narrative that the Democrats are putting out right now, which is there might be some illegal orders. What would you do if you got the illegal orders? So does it make you think about illegal orders? Yes it does. So is that a coincidence? Or is it a deep state CIA persuasion