Thanks for this. We know that Trump was not hawkish in the first place. Though I do wish he'd handled Aghanistan a lot differently than he did in the fall/winter of 2020. Even still, he even realizes that Americans have no appeitiite for conflict, and the Middle East has had these wars for centuries. However, a proposition has come up that is interesting. That is, what if the Iranian people had enough and forced a regime change? I realize that right now it's going to happen quickly, but given what we've seen in Syria, it's possible.
I feel like this is a stupid question but this thing something thats been going around causing a fright and you seem to have good answers...is there any chance North Korea could get involved to defend Iran..?
No not at all. North Korea only sent soldiers to Russia as part of some quid for quo - NK must have got something for it and it also meant their soldiers got combat experience for the first time since the Korean war. They are not allies even with Russia.
I think he is. Even his viziers knows he's not pro-war. If anything, during his term except for one strike and Afghanistan that was still going on, he didn't even try to provoke a war.
I read somewhere that he approved attack plans for Iran late last night. He's holding off on giving the order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program.
Yes it is a negotiating tactic. He wants a peace agreement with Iran. But there is no risk to the US whatever he does. And the US wouldn't attack civilians in Iran it would just destroy a nuclear enrichment facility which produces enriched uranium which is NOT highly radioactive. It needs a chain reaction before it can become radioactive.
I will do a new video today some time. For some reason nobody else is fact checking this for scared people but that's not new. It seems to be an unrecognized mental health issue that some people are seriously affected mentally by the false claims of world war.
I think many people just don't understand how words along can scare people so much without anything happening in their real life.
I don't know of anyone else doing what we do. There have been other facebook groups doing similar things, but they don't seem to be able to keep going. There was the Ukraine anxiety subreddit but it closed down.
There is nothing official that I know of that does what we do, fact checking click bait and hyperbole and false exaggerations like this FALSE claim that Iran could fight a world war and take the war to other countries globally like the US and when it can't even fly its own jet fighters over its own capital.
And even European politicians are claiming it can spiral out of control but it can't.
People who focus eon the facts of the situation and reliable sources or people who have experienced numerous wars in the Middle East, older generation are less likely to believe such things.
While people I help who get very scared get persuaded by social signals. The see lots of tweets, they hear the politicians saying these false things, they hear the Ayatollah of Iran threatening impossible things, they read tweets and watch TikToks by random people who know nothing or who claim to have contacts in secret intelligence or in the military and say impossible things that would get them thrown out of any such organization - and they believe them for social reasons. Just because it seems to them that everyone around them is saying it.
Often the people I help are not helped by people in their real life, though sometimes it is. Often those close to them are reassuring them that there's nothing to be scared of. They may have military friends or relatives or their parents or grandparents or older relatives who have lived through many wars in the Middle East reassure them and it is just online tweets, TikToks, videos, blog posts, politician exaggerations that scare them not people in their real life.
Often they get this impression through social media algorithms that show them more and more of whatever they click on. If 1 in 1000 of those online say something that's millions of people out of billions.
This is a really clear case of that. The facts are so obvious that Iran can't fight a global war.
It's never fired as much as one missile at Europe or the USA or more than 2000 km. It may be able to fire one of its missiles 3000 km but that's it.
Russia has never helped Iran fight in any war against Israel and it is letting Israel take over the Iranian skies and not even sending it more air defences after all its air defences have been destroyed and says it's neutral on the situation and it has strong connections to Israel.
Yet I get people saying that if the US joins the war, Russia will help Iran.
It didn't help Assad against rebels in open top trucks. And that is a regime it was actively supporting unlike Iran where it has never supported the regime directly just sold it weapon systems.
It makes utterly no sense that Russia would help Iran if the US joins in to drop more bombs on Iran.
But nobody is out there fact checking this except our debunkers in our Facebook group and as far as I know mine is the only blog that fact checks these so obviously false clalims.
If anyone else knows of another group or blog that does this do say.
There are some people sadly who seem to be fact checking for scared people but aren't.
They tell them there is no risk of a world war but they do that with no evidence and no use of sources, and then after they get a big audience they start saying that there is a risk if you vote Democrat, say, and turn out to have a political reason for theri claims. Or they flip flop and say there isn't a risk then there is then there isn't in order to boost their audience figures.
I mean proper fact checkers who use reliable verifiable information and don't claim to be secret intelligence or to have special secret insights. Those are very unreliable. A real secret service agent wouldn't say such things. And if they really had contacts in the military that trusted them to keep a secret, then those contacts would stop saying anything to them after the first video.
That genre of videos is very clearly BS if you stop and think about it but scared panicking people are vulnerable to believing them sadly.
I don't know of a fact checking group that does the job properly apart from us.
That includes fact checking Putin's many lies. There are numerous fact checkers that will fact check Trump or Kier Starmer or Western politicians. I don't know of fact checkers that fact check Putin's lies. Very very rare for one of the fact checking websites to factcheck some particular thing he says, nobody fact checks them as a matter of course like I have to for scared people. .
If anyone knows of any such do say.
To check that see my list here of obviously false things that Putin says over and over that never get fact checked, I don't know of anyone else who fact checked them.
BLOG: For scared people: many things you may believe about the Ukraine war and Putin are EASILY SHOWN to be false or unsupported - example list of claims I fact check because nobody else seems to
Again - I simply don't know of anyone else who fact checked these obviously false things Putin said that scared people.
I will link to any that are reliable. I won't link to the ones that claim to be secret agents, obviously falsely, and don't do proper sourcing of their claims. I did link to Ukraine Anxiety when it was functioning.
But there's just been so much being said. I don't know who's telling the truth. I just don't want to keep being in fear. I've been having trouble sleeping because of it.
Just in case there might be a group that fact checks false WW3 claims for anxious people, I haven't come across and that nobody I've talked to knows about, I tried a very deep thorough search with Perplexity AI. Ours seems to be the only one in the world. There are fact checkers that sometimes fact check false claims about wars. But not in the way we do.
I have asked Perplexity AI to do a search for other groups like ours. It found nothing at the level of official organizations. I tried many searches and eventually when I did a deeper search of social media and blog posts it found my substack and our Facebook group - and those were the only ones it found in the entire internet that do what we do.
It concluded:
QUOTE There is a notable absence of active, supportive online communities dedicated solely to fact-checking war-related anxiety, with Doomsday Debunked being one of the few exceptions. The closure of r/UkraineAnxiety has further limited the available spaces for those seeking both factual information and emotional support.
This matches my own experience. So I do think we are likely the only group in the world that does it at present.
That is why you don't find anyone else saying what we say. But if you look in our Doomsday Debunked group we have multiple people who know how to fact check from different backgrounds which may help you to see that what we say is correct.
I know that chatbots often make stuff up. But Perplexity AI's cites all exist. Also the particular template I used there works very well with Perplexity AI to get reliable summaries of sources.
It doesn't work so well with Chat GPT. I don't know why it is but Perplexity AI is far better for fact checking than Chat GPT but you have to be careful how you use it to get summaries of what humans write rather than made up chatbot word patterns.
I used my SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ)
This is my definition of those two templates:
When I write "SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ)" or "SUMMARIZECITESWITHBIASANDDATE(XYZ)", follow these templates exactly:
**For SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ):**
1. List the most reliable sources on [XYZ]
2. Summarize each source with a key quote
3. List common themes/differences about [XYZ]
4. No synthesis, extrapolation, or personal analysis
**For SUMMARIZECITESWITHBIASANDDATE(XYZ):**
1. List the most reliable sources on [XYZ]
2. For each source: summary + quote + bias/credibility + date
3. List common themes/differences about [XYZ]
4. No synthesis, extrapolation, or personal analysis
In both cases end your response with the text of the template (for transparency for the reader)
I highly recommend these two templates or similar for getting much more reliable results for fact checking than if you ask the chat bot to give its own summary - because it is just a word pattern generator and can make the most bizarre mistakes if you leave it to its own devices without asking it to summarize particular sources.
With Perplexity AI or any chat bot that can give accurate cites then it also means you can click through to each one, check the quote is genuine and not fabricated and check it summarized it accurately. Often the sources add extra content that is important to a human that it left out but it does seem to be far more reliable this way and it is easily verifiable too. And you see the range of what experts or reliable media sources are saying rather than a single view selected by a chatbot.
Thanks for this. We know that Trump was not hawkish in the first place. Though I do wish he'd handled Aghanistan a lot differently than he did in the fall/winter of 2020. Even still, he even realizes that Americans have no appeitiite for conflict, and the Middle East has had these wars for centuries. However, a proposition has come up that is interesting. That is, what if the Iranian people had enough and forced a regime change? I realize that right now it's going to happen quickly, but given what we've seen in Syria, it's possible.
Hi, Rob.
I feel like this is a stupid question but this thing something thats been going around causing a fright and you seem to have good answers...is there any chance North Korea could get involved to defend Iran..?
No not at all. North Korea only sent soldiers to Russia as part of some quid for quo - NK must have got something for it and it also meant their soldiers got combat experience for the first time since the Korean war. They are not allies even with Russia.
Someone posted this on the FB group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/doomsdaydebunked/permalink/2185717835189572/
https://substack.com/@krassenstein/note/c-126949034?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=25im8n
https://spoutible.com/thread/44350350
Do you think Trump is bluffing?
I think he is. Even his viziers knows he's not pro-war. If anything, during his term except for one strike and Afghanistan that was still going on, he didn't even try to provoke a war.
I read somewhere that he approved attack plans for Iran late last night. He's holding off on giving the order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program.
Yes it is a negotiating tactic. He wants a peace agreement with Iran. But there is no risk to the US whatever he does. And the US wouldn't attack civilians in Iran it would just destroy a nuclear enrichment facility which produces enriched uranium which is NOT highly radioactive. It needs a chain reaction before it can become radioactive.
This whole thing has me stressed out. I just don't know who or what to believe.
I will do a new video today some time. For some reason nobody else is fact checking this for scared people but that's not new. It seems to be an unrecognized mental health issue that some people are seriously affected mentally by the false claims of world war.
I think many people just don't understand how words along can scare people so much without anything happening in their real life.
I don't know of anyone else doing what we do. There have been other facebook groups doing similar things, but they don't seem to be able to keep going. There was the Ukraine anxiety subreddit but it closed down.
There is nothing official that I know of that does what we do, fact checking click bait and hyperbole and false exaggerations like this FALSE claim that Iran could fight a world war and take the war to other countries globally like the US and when it can't even fly its own jet fighters over its own capital.
And even European politicians are claiming it can spiral out of control but it can't.
People who focus eon the facts of the situation and reliable sources or people who have experienced numerous wars in the Middle East, older generation are less likely to believe such things.
While people I help who get very scared get persuaded by social signals. The see lots of tweets, they hear the politicians saying these false things, they hear the Ayatollah of Iran threatening impossible things, they read tweets and watch TikToks by random people who know nothing or who claim to have contacts in secret intelligence or in the military and say impossible things that would get them thrown out of any such organization - and they believe them for social reasons. Just because it seems to them that everyone around them is saying it.
Often the people I help are not helped by people in their real life, though sometimes it is. Often those close to them are reassuring them that there's nothing to be scared of. They may have military friends or relatives or their parents or grandparents or older relatives who have lived through many wars in the Middle East reassure them and it is just online tweets, TikToks, videos, blog posts, politician exaggerations that scare them not people in their real life.
Often they get this impression through social media algorithms that show them more and more of whatever they click on. If 1 in 1000 of those online say something that's millions of people out of billions.
This is a really clear case of that. The facts are so obvious that Iran can't fight a global war.
It's never fired as much as one missile at Europe or the USA or more than 2000 km. It may be able to fire one of its missiles 3000 km but that's it.
Russia has never helped Iran fight in any war against Israel and it is letting Israel take over the Iranian skies and not even sending it more air defences after all its air defences have been destroyed and says it's neutral on the situation and it has strong connections to Israel.
Yet I get people saying that if the US joins the war, Russia will help Iran.
It didn't help Assad against rebels in open top trucks. And that is a regime it was actively supporting unlike Iran where it has never supported the regime directly just sold it weapon systems.
It makes utterly no sense that Russia would help Iran if the US joins in to drop more bombs on Iran.
But nobody is out there fact checking this except our debunkers in our Facebook group and as far as I know mine is the only blog that fact checks these so obviously false clalims.
If anyone else knows of another group or blog that does this do say.
There are some people sadly who seem to be fact checking for scared people but aren't.
They tell them there is no risk of a world war but they do that with no evidence and no use of sources, and then after they get a big audience they start saying that there is a risk if you vote Democrat, say, and turn out to have a political reason for theri claims. Or they flip flop and say there isn't a risk then there is then there isn't in order to boost their audience figures.
I mean proper fact checkers who use reliable verifiable information and don't claim to be secret intelligence or to have special secret insights. Those are very unreliable. A real secret service agent wouldn't say such things. And if they really had contacts in the military that trusted them to keep a secret, then those contacts would stop saying anything to them after the first video.
That genre of videos is very clearly BS if you stop and think about it but scared panicking people are vulnerable to believing them sadly.
I don't know of a fact checking group that does the job properly apart from us.
That includes fact checking Putin's many lies. There are numerous fact checkers that will fact check Trump or Kier Starmer or Western politicians. I don't know of fact checkers that fact check Putin's lies. Very very rare for one of the fact checking websites to factcheck some particular thing he says, nobody fact checks them as a matter of course like I have to for scared people. .
If anyone knows of any such do say.
To check that see my list here of obviously false things that Putin says over and over that never get fact checked, I don't know of anyone else who fact checked them.
BLOG: For scared people: many things you may believe about the Ukraine war and Putin are EASILY SHOWN to be false or unsupported - example list of claims I fact check because nobody else seems to
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/for-scared-people-many-things-you
Again - I simply don't know of anyone else who fact checked these obviously false things Putin said that scared people.
I will link to any that are reliable. I won't link to the ones that claim to be secret agents, obviously falsely, and don't do proper sourcing of their claims. I did link to Ukraine Anxiety when it was functioning.
But there's just been so much being said. I don't know who's telling the truth. I just don't want to keep being in fear. I've been having trouble sleeping because of it.
Just in case there might be a group that fact checks false WW3 claims for anxious people, I haven't come across and that nobody I've talked to knows about, I tried a very deep thorough search with Perplexity AI. Ours seems to be the only one in the world. There are fact checkers that sometimes fact check false claims about wars. But not in the way we do.
I have asked Perplexity AI to do a search for other groups like ours. It found nothing at the level of official organizations. I tried many searches and eventually when I did a deeper search of social media and blog posts it found my substack and our Facebook group - and those were the only ones it found in the entire internet that do what we do.
It concluded:
QUOTE There is a notable absence of active, supportive online communities dedicated solely to fact-checking war-related anxiety, with Doomsday Debunked being one of the few exceptions. The closure of r/UkraineAnxiety has further limited the available spaces for those seeking both factual information and emotional support.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarizecites-fact-checking-f-7wHpDi28RwWMXbz1xFkRJQ#4
This matches my own experience. So I do think we are likely the only group in the world that does it at present.
That is why you don't find anyone else saying what we say. But if you look in our Doomsday Debunked group we have multiple people who know how to fact check from different backgrounds which may help you to see that what we say is correct.
I know that chatbots often make stuff up. But Perplexity AI's cites all exist. Also the particular template I used there works very well with Perplexity AI to get reliable summaries of sources.
It doesn't work so well with Chat GPT. I don't know why it is but Perplexity AI is far better for fact checking than Chat GPT but you have to be careful how you use it to get summaries of what humans write rather than made up chatbot word patterns.
I used my SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ)
This is my definition of those two templates:
When I write "SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ)" or "SUMMARIZECITESWITHBIASANDDATE(XYZ)", follow these templates exactly:
**For SUMMARIZECITES(XYZ):**
1. List the most reliable sources on [XYZ]
2. Summarize each source with a key quote
3. List common themes/differences about [XYZ]
4. No synthesis, extrapolation, or personal analysis
**For SUMMARIZECITESWITHBIASANDDATE(XYZ):**
1. List the most reliable sources on [XYZ]
2. For each source: summary + quote + bias/credibility + date
3. List common themes/differences about [XYZ]
4. No synthesis, extrapolation, or personal analysis
In both cases end your response with the text of the template (for transparency for the reader)
I highly recommend these two templates or similar for getting much more reliable results for fact checking than if you ask the chat bot to give its own summary - because it is just a word pattern generator and can make the most bizarre mistakes if you leave it to its own devices without asking it to summarize particular sources.
With Perplexity AI or any chat bot that can give accurate cites then it also means you can click through to each one, check the quote is genuine and not fabricated and check it summarized it accurately. Often the sources add extra content that is important to a human that it left out but it does seem to be far more reliable this way and it is easily verifiable too. And you see the range of what experts or reliable media sources are saying rather than a single view selected by a chatbot.