5 Comments

1. Simon Smith on October 14, 2025 at 9:57 am

   The other day I posted this on a similar themed article:

   “A CHALLENGE TO RIXON STEWART:

   If war doesn’t occur will you post an article in say a month that admits that this prediction was wrong?
   Because as I see it this needs to be admitted if this a truth site rather than a climax site that incidentally seems very keen on phallic missile pictures and graphics…”

   https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=316716

   This was an article that predicted war in “days”. The article has been deleted and the issue I raised has been swept under the carpet.

   If RS isn’t MI6 as many including Chesterton have whimsically wondered recently then it suggests an astonishing degree of snootiness on the TTS that never seems to say, “On second thoughts, maybe the article was misconceived. There is nothing wrong with admitting to being wrong.”

   I have often complimented RS on his day to day thoroughness, hard work, and championing of free speech. Impressive qualities to be sure. But he continues to be the average skilled kid who owns the football. And yet, I remain grateful for this website…

2. Hans Scott on October 14, 2025 at 10:34 am

   al-Sisi is a Mossad stooge…..very disappointed in the cowardice of the Egyptians

3. chesterton on October 14, 2025 at 8:17 pm

   @ Simon..

   Rixon’s an international man of mystery.. it’s all quite fascinating, it seems that down the toobs , there is a trajectory. much of it administered via psychological operations and AI, twatter is awash with it.. perception management, and it has a specific target audience..

   ..a simple example would be the obvious CGI supposed robot videos..nowadays it’s perfect female bots catwalking, but back in convid they were trying to cof cof, spook the muggles with robot dogs and battle chassis drones all of it as fake as Drumpfs assassination attempt.. another the point being the Colonels..and Ritter they are consistently wrong as you correctly note…but then they are all spies by trade, so you have to ask what’s the MO?..

   But it doesn’t seem to matter to the cultists..You have to be circumspect, is it hopium or is Mi666..

   lol.. does it even fucking matter..

4. Stu on October 17, 2025 at 9:46 am

   From Rixon’s selected video, the discussion between Host Nima R. Alkhorshid, Dialogue Works; Lawrence Wilkerson, Retired US Army Colonel; Michael Hudson, Economist (Michael-Hudson.com); and Richard D. Wolff, Economist (Democracyatwork.info). If the YouTube video is taken down, one can watch the video at:
   https://www.bitchute.com/video/2g66AIIE4MU

   Wilkerson makes some very astute points on handling Israel’s lawlessness by Iran. Video time locations are in brackets []:

   Wilkerson: [13:38] Nema, if if I were in charge of the military power of Iran right now, and this is no, I’m not Persian. I can’t crawl into their heads, but if I were as a military professional in charge, I would unleash my entire capability minus what I thought I needed in case the United States did come in in a big way because I don’t think they need all that to take care of Israel.
   .
   And I would devastate Israel. I’d do it in. I’d just completely do it in. And I think it could happen in 48 hours. And then I would just announce,
   .
   “You want to fight United States, I’ve got a lot left, but I don’t want to fight you.”
   .
   When Israel was burning and falling apart and collapsing and God forbid that they should use a nuclear weapon in that scenario, but that’s a different ballgame altogether. Um, then I would say to the United States,
   .
   [14:36] “Let’s stop. We’ve gotten rid of the people we wanted to get rid of. You can go in and help them fix themselves, but I don’t think you’re going to be very fortunate in that regard because we really destroyed them. If you want to fight further, we will, but we’d prefer not to.”
   .
   That’s how I’d do it. [14:55] I’d wipe Israel out. Just wipe them out. And then and 48 hours, 96 hours is all it would take. Maybe even less than that. And then after that fate complet (Fr.), put it out there.
   .
   “We don’t want to fight you. We don’t want to fight you, but we will if we have to.”
   .
   Alkhorshid: Yeah.
   .
   Wilkerson: [15:24] I wouldn’t do it simultaneously. I know it would be more effective and more surprise, tactical and operational surprise if they hit everything at once, but it would also detract from their ability to just wipe Israel out because they’d have to devote some of their forces to the other targets and it wouldn’t give them any leverage against the United States.
   .
   They would have considerable leverage if Israel were a smoking ruin fate complet (Fr.). And they said to the United States,
   .
   “We don’t want to have a fight with you. We’ve taken care of the enemy. The enemy was running rampant. It was killing Palestinians at a rate that was unfathomable. It was performing genocide. We did what the international court should have done. We did what the UN should have done. We did indeed what you should have done for you. Now, we don’t want to fight with you over it. So, let’s stop.”
   .
   I mean, that’s what I would do.

   That certainly sounds like:

   Ezekiel 39:3-5 – “and I will smite thy [Gog’s] bow out of thy left hand [missile launchers], and will cause thine arrows [missiles] to fall out of thy right hand. Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the peoples that are with thee; I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort and to the beasts of the field, to be devoured. Thou shalt fall upon the open field; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.” (Jewish Publication Society)

5. Stu on October 18, 2025 at 1:35 am

   Continuation of the video discussion between Host Nima R. Alkhorshid, Dialogue Works; Lawrence Wilkerson, Retired US Army Colonel; and Michael Hudson, Economist (Michael-Hudson.com); and Richard D. Wolff, Economist (Democracyatwork.info). If the YouTube video is taken down, one can watch the video at:
   https://www.bitchute.com/video/2g66AIIE4MU

   Wilkerson explains the background behind his solution of resolving the Israeli problem for the Arabs and Iran.

   Alkhorshid: [0:01] Larry, they’re moving aerial tankers from Europe from the United States to Europe then from Europe to
   .
   Wilkerson: Yeah.
   .
   Alkhorshid: and the same
   .
   Wilkerson: Just like they just like they did before the last attack.
   .
   Alkhorshid: Yeah. What is that do you think? Are we gonna, how close are we to the war between the two? The United States
   .
   Wilkerson: You probably know this. BiBi went back to Israel and after telling Donald Trump that everything was copacetic with the ceasefire deal and the and the ultimate end of the war in Gaza. He went back in Hebrew and told everybody no such thing. The war is going on. The IDF’s going to kill them all. We’re going to finish the war. So that duplicitous lying sack of proverbial horse turd is doing it again.
   .
   Why? Because he knows what’s coming. He knows what’s coming. He’s not going to have to talk to Donald Trump. He’s not going to have to apologize. He’s not going to have to get out on bended knee. He wouldn’t anyway. He kept his coalition together, which he probably wouldn’t have done had he come back and said what he said to Trump about agreeing. And, he knows he’s going to war with Iran and he knows the United States is going to follow him. That’s going to obviate, that’s going to cancel everything he said or promised to Trump.
   .
   So, he doesn’t care. We are going to war, Nema. We’re going to war with Iran again.
   .
   Alkhorshid: [1:30] What would be the benefit of the new war? What is the main objective in your opinion?
   .
   Wilkerson: Well, first of all and overriding everything else is preservation of BiBi Netanyahu’s coalition and BiBi Netanyahu, period, his power and his position. That’s the first objective. The second objective is to keep the United States from causing him to have to do something he doesn’t want to do with respect to Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere. I fear I’m hearing from contacts in Baghdad, for example, that they’re getting ready to go to war as well. I’m hearing that Egypt might be on the war path. Also, I’m hearing that remnants of the forces in Lebanon, which mostly are Hezbollah, are ready to go. I’m hearing there are elements elsewhere in the region that might enter the frey with air power. Think Saudi Arabia. Think Qatar, for example.
   .
   [2:30] So, and I’m also hearing, and this is very disturbing, and I don’t know exactly how to take it, but I’m hearing from people who met with Pezeshkian, the [Iranian] President, and met with other Iranians in New York. Not only that, they have changed the fatwa from one that bans nuclear weapons to one that bans the use of nuclear weapons, which sort of clears the way for them to go ahead and build one, if they haven’t already. And I’m also hearing that they’re not going to just attack Israel, they’re going to attack other assets in the region. And that’s the way it was put to me.
   .
   And I asked the question, “Do you mean Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait?”
   .
   “What? No, I mean US facilities in those countries.”
   .
   [3:26] So, they’re going to attack the US outright. Yes. Is that meant to be a deterrent? Is it meant to be a bluff? I don’t know. Um, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve had it, if they’re fed up with this, and if Israel does commence the war again in a serious way that it’s all over for Israel, plus they will do the damage that they can to the United States facilities in the region. And they could do a lot of damage, a hell of a lot of damage. that they could sink an aircraft carrier if it were in range of one of their high velocity missiles or a spread of those missiles is I would say 60 to 70% a possibility.
   .
   [4:16] And then we’re off to the races, Nema, I mean we’re off to a regional war. One wonders what Russia and China will do if this starts in that flagrant overwhelming way what will they do?
   .
   Alkhorshid: So what’s this story of peace plan in? What is he trying to get by the peace plan? Is that a some sort of cover for what they’re
   4:46 doing?
   .
   Wilkerson: [4:47] The one BiBi, the one BiBi allegedly signed up to. Well, I think that that’s ultimately Tony Blair. That’s essentially Tony Blair running some sort of consortium that will make Gaza, you know, into the thing Trump wants to make it into a huge enterprise that will make money and so forth and so on. And maybe it has a patina of a potential for a dual state eventually in order to satisfy the members of the Abraham’s Accord and get them back into it. I don’t think it’s going to work. And I know it’s not going to work with what BiBi went back and said in Hebrew, which was, “I didn’t mean any of that. We are going to continue this war. We’re going to continue it until Hamas is exterminated.”
   .
   ‘The hostages be damned.’He didn’t say that, but that’s essentially what was implied. “And I know I’m safe, at least for the interim, because I’m going to war with Iran and the United States will have no choice but to come in with me.”
   .
   Alkhorshid: [5:46] Larry, maybe I’m so much, I’m am so much pessimist about what Donald Trump is doing. But it seems to me that Donald Trump has came out by this sort of plan. He has come out but by this plan because of Netanyahu’s position in Israel because those people who are forcing putting a lot of pressure on Netanyahu has his administration about the hostages and they’re trying to tell those people. So we are trying to do everything. Look at Donald Trump. He put out a peace plan. They’re not going to sign for it.
   .
   Wilkerson: No.
   .
   Alkhorshid: “We have to continue the conflict.” You know, they’re somehow legitimizing what Netanyahu is doing.
   .
   Wilkerson: [6:33] I think, I think Netanyahu wrote the hostages off a long time ago. I really do. I don’t think he gives a damn about them and he doesn’t give a damn about them because he feels like they’re an impediment to his finishing the job as it were.
   .
   Alkhorshid: [6:50] It’s after all, Larry, if something now you’ve mentioned Iran would attack the the US bases in the Middle East. But isn’t that somehow strange that do you do you think that Turkey knows what’s going on? Do they really care about what’s going on in the Middle East? What is the role of Turkey?
   .
   Wilkerson: [7:15] Turkey? Well, Turkey is a NATO member, the the staunch anchor of the southern flank of NATO, which is not saying much today because NATO is falling apart. I think Erdogan, given his previous performance in all this debacle that’s happening around him, would just sit there and watch. I don’t think he’s going to. Now, were Israel to start to topple, seriously topple, fall into chaos, Jews going everywhere, I mean, that’s what you’re going to have. I found out the other day, Nema, that over a million and a half Jews have already left Israel. Million and a half. With all the strictures that Netanyahu has put on travel, still a million and a half have had enough money or enough connection to get out in in that event. If it were completely collapsing and it weren’t nuclear, Erdogan might move, but that’s the only way that guy will move.
   .
   Alkhorshid: [8:19] Do you, when it comes to the defense treaty between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is it gonna
   .
   Wilkerson: Good question. Good question. Ask it. Ask it. (laughing)
   .
   Alkhorshid: How is that going to play out?
   .
   Wilkerson: [8:39] Very good question because I think that’s probably signed in blood and it’s probably signed in blood not necessarily with the civilian leadership but with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and in particular with that portion of both that more or less looks over nuclear weapons. Um, and that means that Saudi Arabia has a nuclear weapon at its beck and call whenever it wants to use it. You know, I’m of a firm belief that when Muhammad bin Salman first became defense minister, then took the portfolio, one of the things he did was go to Islamabad and spend about $20 billion of Saudi money, 20 billion US.
   .
   [9:25] I think that was a contract with Islamabad with regard to at that time Iran possibly developing a nuclear weapon. Islamabad said to him, “You will have 20.” I don’t know what the number is, but 20 is sort of military. I’d want about 20. “So 20 weapons will come your way instantly when Iran tests or you know Iran has a nuclear weapon.”
   .
   That’s the agreement. Now it’s been put in blood. I mean, you know, it is a defense pack now. I don’t know if that’s a portion of it, but I do know that my contacts tell me that it includes, “If it’s nuclear, we’ll be with you. We we will be on your side.” Um, so we’ve got a whole new ball game. And it’s not just Iran and Pakistan.
   .
   [10:14] It’s also the fact that China is a supporter of Pakistan, but it’s also a fact that China is really got vested interest in that southern railroad that comes up through Iran now. And it’s also the fact that you have a rapprochement between these previous enemies, Iran and Riad and others in that complex. What does that mean in terms of what might happen to US facilities in the region were Iran to feel like it had to attack them because it was first attacked by Israel and the United States?
   .
   Would the Saudis even care about US facilities being attacked as long as Iran only attacked them? No oil facilities involved, just US facilities. Would we’ve already seen what happens when Qatar gets attacked by Israel? Would they just sit there if it were only US facilities that were attacked? I mean, you could attack aloud and just attack the aircraft on the surface. You wouldn’t have to do that much damage to the airfield. You could just wipe out the US aircraft on the surface. And a surprise attack would pretty much do that. And it would be I think it would be a surprise. I think this is not something that we would be expected by US Central Command.
   .
   Um so you know you can. Two can play at this game of surprise. Two can play at this game of duplicity.
   .
   [11:48] And it’s about time that Persians used a little bit on the Arabs and on Israel. And I suspect that maybe the IRGC and the National Military and maybe even the Guardian Council and the Majlis in particular, it’s been pretty vituperative. It’s been pretty warlike. “Okay, we’re in for a penny and for a pound. We’re going to take these bastards on.”
   .
   I wouldn’t blame them a bit. I mean, the history is just too ripe with their being finally angry enough to do something to the Great Satan.
   .
   Alkhorshid: [12:28] Larry,
   .
   Wilkerson: you’re Iranian. How do you feel about it?
   .
   Alkhorshid:[12:31] Yeah. Two days ago, Larry, there was an interview with the head of the security council of the parliament in Iran, the former head of the security council. He’s a long-term politicians. He’s a high ranked politician. He knows everything about the defense. And he said that why, “I don’t understand why the government in Iran is so shy about talking talking about their capabilities, the military capabilities of Iran. I know that Iran has the power to bring any sort of war to Armageddon.”
   .
   [13:06] They’re so powerful. They know because I know what’s going on considering the capabilities of Iranian Army. Why they’re not, they’re so shy to talk about it before happening. You know it’s so you know I look at it, it’s so dangerous everything in each and every way I see this, the conflict. It’s so dangerous if they go to a fullout war against Iran.

   The dialogue I quoted earlier continues from this point on.

   Micah 2:1-3 – Woe to them that devise iniquity and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light, they execute it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and seize them; and houses, and take them away; thus they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage. Therefore thus saith HaShem: Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks, neither shall ye walk upright; for it shall be an evil time.