When Did World War III Start?

When Did World War III Start?

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.” (Matthew 24:6, NIV)

If you asked a cross section of Americans when World War II began, out of those who could provide an intelligent answer at all, many would say that it began on Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, or on the following day, when the United States declared war on the Axis powers.

Both answers would be wrong, however, as these only represent the direct catalyst for America’s entry into the war, and the day it formalized that action, respectively.

If you asked a Manchurian when World War II began, his answer might reflect what the history books say concerning Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in September of 1931, nearly ten years before America entered the war. The Chinese would likely tell you that the war began in July of 1937, when Japan invaded China. An Ethiopian might hold that the war began in October of 1935, when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Albanians and those in Scandinavian nations would provide still different answers, all substantially predating America’s entry into World War II.

Similarly, altogether too many Americans would be likely to cite the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863 as the start of hostilities in the American Civil War; a gross misrepresentation of the historical record to be sure, since the war had been going on for two years at that point.

Even if one cites the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (he was inaugurated in March of 1861) or the secession of the Southern States beginning in January of 1861 as the beginning of that conflict, historians who do not hold that slavery was the primary basis for the Civil War maintain that causes and conditions going back decades prior set the stage for that war, and indeed made it practically inevitable.

In both cases, it is evident that war had broken out long before open hostilities became commonplace.

While the same might be said for countless other conflicts familiar to Americans, World War II and the Civil War are germane to this discussion because I believe it is likely that in the not-so-distant future, historians and Americans (assuming there are still any of the latter around) will engage in deep discussions concerning how the United States was able to fight a world war (World War III, presumably) while a civil war (the “Second Civil War,” perhaps) also raged within its borders.

There’s little doubt that for many WWII-era Americans, the war was not “real” until Pearl Harbor. Although the U.S. has been fighting on and off in the Middle East theater since the 1990s, Americans are unlikely to plant the “WWIII Started Here” landmark until the next large-scale, catastrophic attack on their homeland, perhaps one involving nuclear weapons or a conventional attack by a nation state.

The argument for World War III having already begun is certainly plausible, and I’m not the first to postulate this. America under Barack Hussein Obama has been singularly responsible for the collapse of governments and/or war breaking out in Ukraine, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Tunisia and a host of African nations whose Muslim populations took a cue from the White House-catalyzed Arab Spring. Europe is being invaded by millions of Muslims; the fact that most of their number arrive sans weaponry appears to be moot from a tactical standpoint.

In objective terms, it’s easy to see how nations around the globe might see the U.S. as an analogue to Germany in the 1930s, whether or not these nations have been directly affected by the actions of our current government.

The determination of how and when America “officially” enters World War III will be a function of the same elusive factors that determine when we realize that we’re already fighting a civil war. For example, the establishment press, acting as propagandists for the Orwellian doctrine of the radical left and national socialists, will continue to exacerbate the lack of clarity on a wide range of issues, whether it’s the qualification of full-term unborn babies as human beings, the deleterious effect of societies embracing sexual deviance and libertinism, or the question of whether or not Islamists who have sworn to destroy America are indeed acting in that modality when they carry out terrorist attacks on our soil, behead co-workers, or murder police officers.

This sort of obfuscation will only prolong our collective denial and forestall prudent action to our peril.

Christianity is under siege in America by the radical left, the government and homofascists. Individuals from among some of these groups routinely call for everything from the complete disenfranchisement to the systematic murder of Christians. Last week, a daytime television talk show host called for federal forces to summarily execute activists in Oregon who were protesting government overreach in land disputes and the federal persecution of ranchers in the Southwest. Young black Americans have been methodically conditioned to believe that due to institutional racism, their lot in life is little better than it might have been in the 1930s, and criminal illegal aliens from various Third World regions have effectively been granted protected status by our government.

While incidents of violence surrounding these domestic issues has been minimal thus far, the current administration has already proved through subterfuge and covert operations in other nations that the lines between domestic tension, civil unrest and civil war can be crossed very quickly.

If in the near future America should find herself embroiled in a full-scale civil war while simultaneously engaged in a global conflict of unprecedented scope, it will be quite clear in retrospect that both became inevitable a long time ago.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Hillary’s Real Links to Terrorists and Nazis

Hillary’s Real Links to Terrorists and Nazis

By Erik Rush

Last week, retired Major League Baseball pitcher and analyst for ESPN Curt Schilling was suspended by the sports network for posting a “controversial” meme about Muslims on Twitter. The tweet in question allegedly compared Muslims to Nazis via a quote that said in part, “Only 5-10 percent of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7 percent of Germans were Nazis …”

Which is, is one may have surmised, quite accurate.

Most people have heard of the phenomenon of “projection.” Rather than being a generic descriptor, this term originates in the field of psychology. It refers to the practice of an individual transferring – or “projecting” – objectionable traits they possess onto others. It’s a defense mechanism. Right now, I’d imagine some have just made the connection between this psychoanalytical theory and the character of innumerable arguments made by leftists.

Over the last week, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton engaged in some rather blatant projection at which we shall have a look.

At an Aug. 27 campaign stop in Cleveland, Ms. Clinton leveled the charge that the current lineup of Republican presidential candidates hold views on women’s issues that are akin to those of terrorist groups.

Was this outrageous? Extreme? Well, we’re talking Clintons here, so probably not.

The next day, before an audience in Minneapolis, Clinton employed verbiage evocative of the Holocaust to slander the GOP field. Suggesting that these scoundrels wish to “pull people out of their homes” and put these illegal immigrants in “boxcars,” she was no doubt attempting to reduce the candidates to the status of Nazis in the eyes of voters.

These were, as White House correspondent Keith Koffler stated, “obvious references to the German roundups of Jews in the last 1930s and early 1940s.” He also claimed that Clinton “knows exactly what she’s doing … whatever it takes to win mentality, devoid of scruple or any sense of decorum or morality.”

Or rather: Standard Clinton Operating Procedure.

Hillary’s comparison of Republican candidates to terrorists was outrageous (by civilized standards, not a Clinton’s) and slanderous, but it was not tactically sound, being a “glass house” offensive. In other words, her comparison threw the door open wide to a discussion of the Clinton Foundation taking millions of dollars in donations from terrorist-supporting, misogynistic primitives.

Which is what qualifies her words as projection.

As for her subsequent comparison of the GOP candidates to Nazis, Clinton’s relationship with the aforementioned well-heeled misogynistic primitives is actually the tie-in.

It is well and proper to scrutinize the Clinton Foundation’s donor list, their practices and whether donors paid for political influence when Ms. Clinton was secretary of state. It is also appropriate that we point out the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton taking money (via the foundation) from entities that grossly violate principles she ostensibly upholds.

But why not pursue this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion?

Once again I turn to Chuck Morse’s book, “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini,” an analysis of the working relationship between Islamists and Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. The book illustrates the philosophical kinship between the Nazis and their Islamist contemporaries, as well as their cooperation after World War II.

Hitler’s friend Haj Amin al-Husseini was the leader of Arab Palestine during World War II; Nazi Germany shipped arms to Arab insurgents in Palestine, and al-Husseini aided the Nazis in the recruitment of Eastern European Muslims to fight in German SS units. He also had a hand in urging the Nazis and pro-Nazi governments in Europe to transport Jews to death camps.

After the war, Al-Husseini would mentor the next generation of Arab Islamists (one was PLO leader and terrorist Yasser Arafat) in his role as leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jerusalem.

Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama has been instrumental in the Muslim Brotherhood advancing its goals worldwide. Many Americans probably accept his relationship with them, or rationalize it away due to notions of political correctness or Obama’s familial ties to Islam.

The same accepting, rationalizing Americans would probably be surprised to learn that Bill and Hillary Clinton have enjoyed a very profitable, decades-long relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a wealth of evidence substantiating this; the depth and breadth of the Clintons’ dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood – whose stated mandate is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” – is truly astonishing.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the wellspring from which all Sunni Muslim and Wahabbist terror organizations flow. Further, aside from their historical hatred of Israel and the Jewish people, Nazi philosophy that was inculcated through their association with the Third Reich is now well-ingrained into the belief system of these groups.

So, Hillary Clinton knows a great deal about terrorists and Nazis; she and Bill have been collaborating with them for years. In projecting onto Republicans, the (perhaps calculated) risk she took was that they might exploit the tactical error and reveal these connections.

Which of course the Republicans did not.

Instead of broadcasting the Clintons’ treasonous associations from the rooftop of the Capitol, the Republican National Committee had their press secretary make a statement demanding an apology from Ms. Clinton for her dumb old icky mean words.

Why hasn’t anyone among the GOP leadership brought this damning evidence to light considering Ms. Clinton’s rash comments? Well, that has to do with a certain aversion people have to self-incrimination. Many Republican power players are, shall we say, in a somewhat compromised position when it comes to Islamist front groups, so they’re a bit reluctant to break open that wholesale outlet-sized can of worms.

But that’s a story for another time …


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama backs Nazis, crickets from the press

Obama_Yatsenyuk1Without a doubt, the political landscape in America has become such a surreal wasteland of utter deceit and conspiracy that should a preponderance of citizens ever become aware of its breadth and depth, we will collectively suffer a paroxysm of shame as well as horror in having been so completely duped for so many years by so many whom we trusted.

Since December, the European press has regularly reported on the fact that the Obama administration and congressional emissaries have lent support both moral and economic to factions that later became the revolutionary government in Ukraine. These factions, which fomented the uprisings leading to the flight of President Viktor Yanukovych late last month, are essentially Nazis.

In mid-December of 2013, Sen. John McCain traveled to Kiev and visited with members of the Svoboda Party, an ultra-nationalist, anti-Semitic group that is aligned with other European nationalistic parties; initially, they were called the Social National Party of Ukraine. Their symbol is a swastika-style logo. Since 2010, the Svoboda party has garnered a healthy following, winning their first parliamentary seats and taking just over 10 percent of the vote to become Ukraine’s fourth-biggest party.

I believe that the sole reason the European press feels safe in reporting these things is twofold. One is distance: The issue deals with the American government, rather than European governments. Two, their reporting is typically replete with references to the Svoboda Party and other Ukrainian ultra-nationalists as “far-right,” a term that is accurate with respect to the 20th-century European political model, but inaccurate with respect to the present one. It is convenient, however, in demonizing conservatives, particularly American conservatives – so the “far-right” appellation works for them, as well as the American press in other areas.
Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns