Why the Norway Murders Changed the Game

All right. I realize that this story has been examined ad nauseam in the media already, but I still had some thoughts and questions that I would like to bring to the table. For those of you who have been living under a rock (but strangely are able to make it to this blog), on July 22nd an explosion rocked downtown Oslo. As the Norwegian authorities scrambled to make sense of the devastation, a man dressed in a police uniform approached a political summer camp run by the Labor Party and began mercilessly slaughtering the children present. In total, about 76 people had been killed (though early reports had a higher number of dead) by both attacks. While a Muslim terrorist group initially claimed credit for the attack, it was soon discovered that the perpetrator was 32-year old Anders Behring Breivik, a native Norwegian who claimed that the attacks were in response to unchecked Muslim immigration. The apparent motive of the attacks was to draw attention to his "cause" and to spark similar acts of violence across Europe. As quick as the media have been to call Breivik a "Christian extremist," a number of prominent conservative thinkers including Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter have shown that this claim is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. But this post is not about retreading what is by now old territory. Instead, I would simply like to make some observations and ask some questions that have still not been answered to my satisfaction. As such, there will be relatively few links to other websites. After all, if someone has the information that I want, I wouldn't need to ask the question.

The way I see it, there are two possible explanations for this attack. The first is that the radical nationalist elements in Europe have begun their counter-assault on the encroaching Islamist presence in their countries. This sort of thing, unfortunately, is frankly inevitable and will only continue to get worse as the sane elements of the anti-Jihad are demonized and ignored. People with good intentions will be pushed to violence because it will be the only recourse left to them by the ruling elites. By no means do I intend to excuse or justify any of these violent actions or those who commit them. On the contrary, I do what I do so that the sane people of the Western world can shake off the coma that has consumed their society before a violent conflict becomes necessary. But there are genuine monsters lurking on the edges of society that will take advantage of the chaos that is headed our way (and already started in some places) to commit truly hideous acts. This guy, in particular, has earned my ire for his almost comical misuse of the Knights Templar as a symbol to "purify" traditionally Christian lands. Seriously, how come no one has called him (or those who parrot the line) on this simple fact: the Knights Templar did not exist to kill Muslims, they existed to ensure safe travel to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims. The "Knights Templar" that Breivik talks about are closer to a Dan Brown novel than historical reality.

The second possibility is one that I have heard (or read) no one considering: a false flag attack. A false flag attack occurs when one group attacks a second group but makes it look as if a third group was responsible. Before you dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist, I am not saying that I believe that this is the case, or even that it is likely, but the implications should be examined regardless. From the beginning, I have thought that Breivik seems to be a caricature of Christianity and the political right, spewing almost nonsensical statements that the media seizes upon without hesitation. To be fair, many in the left-leaning media view most right-wing Christians as closet psychopaths seeking to kill anyone different from themselves, so no one would expect them to find Breivik's statements to be ridiculously over-the-top. The man's "manifesto" was largely copied from the work of the Unabomber. The rest of Breivik's manifesto also presents a problem for those seeking to easily categorize him as a Christian fundamentalist as he lays out plans to work with "the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout factions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations" (pg. 959 of "A European Declaration of Independence). So the media tells us that Breivik wants to kill the first Muslim that he sees, yet he is actively planning on working with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and Iran! Not to mention the fact that his Facebook and Twitter accounts, which provided the media with his earliest "pro-Christian" statements, had only been set up five days before the attack took place and such an attack would have taken much longer than a week to plan and organize. Adding to the discrepancies are his sudden ability to construct a relatively sophisticated explosive device (which, as the attempted Times Square bomber, the Underpants Bomber, and several other examples have proven, is not an easy task even with a moderate level of training).

No matter which scenario is correct, there is no doubt that the game has changed. I actually hope that this is a false flag attack by one of the "usual suspects" because that means that ordinary Europeans still have more time to prepare themselves morally and spiritually for the coming crisis. But if this was, as Breivik hoped, the first shot in some sort of war we will not have long to wait before another attack occurs. The explosive element of the Oslo attack at least suggests the hand of a larger group (not al-Qaeda sized, but larger than a kook with a chemistry set) which could possibly be operating internationally. Again this is speculative at the moment, but consider the situation that Europe is in right now. Communist revolutionaries are already active throughout Europe, especially in economically troubled nations like Greece or Portugal. Any reader of this blog knows (or is just a few clicks away from knowing) how active Islamist revolutionaries are throughout Europe. For example, a recent study showed that over the past five years every rape committed by a stranger (i.e., not incest) and in which the rapist was identified by the victim was by a Muslim immigrant and targeted almost exclusively native Norwegians. As the situation worsens, the ordinary people of Europe may seek protection from both of these groups and find their governments unable or unwilling to provide it. When that happens, nationalist "right-wing" (although the term is misleading when applied to European politics) revolutionaries will present themselves as a bastion against the barbarian hordes threatening to tear down European society. The moderate, sane voices will be drowned out (or eliminated) and the people of the Western world will find themselves increasingly squeezed from the center and toward one of these three anti-freedom factions as they struggle for dominance. Don't believe me? Take a look at Europe between the end of World War I and the start of World War II to find a situation eerily similar to our own (except we have the added bonus of radical Muslims blowing themselves up in major cities).

There's nothing like good news, and this post has been nothing like good news. I may not present a bright shiny future of hovercars and universal brotherhood, but I strive to tell you exactly what I believe may be headed our way. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject in the Comments section, and keep tuning in (metaphorically speaking) each week.

Temporary Delay

I realize that I did not post anything this past Friday. I am following the Oslo terrorism situation very closely and will have a related post up shortly. I simply did not wish to jump into the debate before the facts were settled and end up having to eat my words if proved incorrect. But even if the terrorist was not Islamic, there are still unanswered questions and important ramifications for the future of Europe's relationship with Islam. Hopefully I can have something up by Wednesday. If not, I will just make it this week's post. As always, thank you for reading. Please continue to tell your friends about The New Knighthood, and leave me a Comment if you have concerns, questions, or suggestions for later posts.

Tragedy Strikes Mumbai Once More

In November of 2008, the Indian city of Mumbai suffered a devastating terrorist rampage that left 164 people dead (including 10 terrorists) and over 300 wounded. The Lashkar-e-Taiba group based out of Pakistan was found to be the culprit, and many experts support the theory that Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) provided some support to the terrorists. Now, less than three years later, the people of Mumbai have been dealt another serious blow. On Wednesday, July 13, three bombs detonated almost simultaneously. The explosions occurred in the densely populated urban neighborhood of Dadar, the jewelry markets of the Zaveri Bazaar, and the business district of Opera House in southern Mumbai. At least 21 people were killed in the blasts and another 141 were injured. The Blaze has more on this story, but be warned that the article contains graphic images.

The guilty party in this most recent attack appears to be the Indian Mujahideen, a "homegrown" group that adheres to radical Sunni ideology. While these bombs were certainly deadly, STRATFOR points out that "this attack does not appear to be as sophisticated as the 2008 attacks," which involved a highly coordinated strike by foreign operatives on Indian soil that lasted for 60 brutal hours. One of the main reasons for concern (beyond the tragic loss of life) is the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba has significant ties to the Indian Mujahideen. According to some reports, bombmakers from Lashkar-e-Taiba may have constructed the devices used in Wednesday's attack because the top bombmakers of the Indian Mujahideen are all in prison. The Indian Mujahideen have tried bombings over the past couple of years, but the devices proved to be defective. Why, all of a sudden, would they be able to coordinate explosions of this magnitude? If this connection is true, then Pakistani groups may be hiding behind local Indian terrorists to advance their common agenda and spread Indian security forces dangerously thin. It would also give the ISI yet another layer of deniability without limiting their opportunities.

The Pakistani government officially condemned the attack, but in reality this means very little. I do not doubt that most of Pakistan's political class are upset at further disruptions to their negotiations with the Indian government. Unfortunately for them, these politicians have less power than they pretend. The military and intelligence services, particularly the ISI, are the real power-players in Pakistan and operate with virtual impunity. The situation is made more disturbing as Pakistan draws increasingly close to China even as Pakistani-US relations worsen. The Indian government is sure to recognize the potential consequences of two of its nuclear-armed neighbors (and rivals) establishing such a cozy relationship with one another. As Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram (read that out loud and tell me it doesn't sound like the title of a camp song) said, "We live in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world. Every part of India is vulnerable." The real question is whether the politicians and analysts in Washington D.C. understand what is happening and have the nerve to stand beside India at a time when the region is turning against them (Huh. You know, that sounds an awful lot like another "I" country suffering from regular Islamist attacks. But more on that in a later post).

The continued attacks on Mumbai highlight an important element in the jihadist strategy: weaken the enemy's financial institutions until they collapse under their own weight. At such a delicate economic time in the world, such a strategy could prove devestating. With riots spreading across the European Union and looming in hard-hit areas of the United States, one critical strike could send the entire world spinning into chaos. And that is exactly what the Islamists, along with their Socialist and Communist allies, want. The people of Mumbai have been hit with another major tragedy. It is important for all of us to recognize the implications of that tragedy. Chaos is on our doorstep, and if we are not careful the entire world could find itself in the same situation as the unfortunate victims of Mumbai.

Slavery and Islam: Part Three-The Spoils of War

In the previous installments of this series, I have presented the idea of Islam's fundamental dependence on slavery from the perspectives of sexual slavery and slave labor. Now I want to wrap it all up where it pretty much all began: slaves as spoils of war. To be clear, taking captives to use as slaves in wartime is as old as organized warfare itself, so I am not saying that Islamic culture is responsible for this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the use of captives (almost always non-combatants) to fuel the war effort, either as a labor force or as human shields, is still a core element of the jihad and must not be overlooked or forgotten.

According to Islamic doctrine, the world is broken into two groups: Dar al-Islam (the land of submission, as in those who have already submitted to Mohammed's message) and the Dar al-Harb (the land of war, as in those who still resist the dictates of Islam). The term "land" literally refers to whether or not the national government is subservient to the dictates of Islam, in other words run under sharia. The mere existence of the Dar al-Harb serves as sufficient justification for any act of war by Muslims. Thus smooth-talking Muslim "moderates" (as opposed to Muslims who actually seek to reform their religion) can assure the media that jihad was only meant for defensive purposes without actually lying. You see, Islamic doctrine holds that the entire world began under a sort of proto-Islam that was then corrupted until the people fell away from Allah. The simple fact that we (non-Muslims) are not dead, converted, or kept in a state of dhimmitude means that we are "occupying" what should be Muslim lands and are thus fair game. With that very simple but crucial bit of understanding, it becomes easier to grasp why Islamists do what they do, including the use of slavery as a tool of war.

Historically, the capture of slaves was a priority for Islamic conquerors. Only a few centuries after the death of Mohammed, Muslim raiders were striking as deeply into Christendom as Rome itself. Early Muslim generals used captives as expendable front-line troops (with the hope that opposing armies would hesitate when facing their own countrymen). Hundreds of years later, the Ottomans would perfect that art with the Janissaries, Christian boys captured in raids or taken from occupied lands at a very young age and raised to be some of the fiercest warriors of their era. The picture was the same on the seas as Muslim pirates would attack Christian merchants or warships and take as many sailors prisoner as possible. These prisoners would either be used to bolster the Caliphate's navy or sold when the pirates returned to port. Miguel Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, suffered for five years as a slave in Algiers when his ship was attacked by corsairs in 1575. Though he was saved by the efforts of the Trinitarians (a Christian group dedicated to purchasing freedom for slaves), untold thousands were not as blessed and never tasted freedom until their death. The corsairs became such a persistent threat that, after the Holy Land was lost, the Knights Hospitallar became wholly focused on stemming the tide (no pun intended) of Islamic piracy. Later, the United States would go to war with the Barbary States (twice!) in order to protect American sailors from such a fate. While the abolishment of the Caliphate by Attaturk shattered the Muslim world's military might, the use of slaves to progress the jihad still lives on to this day.

When Muslim raiders attacked a village, their favorite tactic was to slaughter any men who would be able to resist then kidnap women and children. Those two groups were preferred captives for several reasons. First, neither group would have received any real combat training and would be easier to control through brute force. Second, their capture would have a demoralizing effect on the survivors and could prevent pursuit if the villagers were afraid the captives would be harmed in retaliation. Third, women and young girls (as well as a surprisingly large number of boys) would be valuable as sexual slaves while young men would work in the fields or as household slaves. Boys would also be drafted into the army while they were young enough to be malleable. We see this today (though again not restricted to Islam) in the abduction and brainwashing of child soldiers, particularly in central Africa.

The country of Sudan provides a chilling example of such practices in action today. Anti-Slavery International reports that between 5,000 and 14,000 people have been abducted in armed raids and forced into slavery since 1983. Almost exclusively, the targets of these raids have been the non-Muslims in the south. Rather than fighting this scourge, the Islamic government of Sudan has been a key player in these events, using militia forces to ravage the Christian and animist communities. The militias are instruments of pure terror, looting then burning homes and churches and murdering scores of innocent civilians. In response, several organizations have been working on purchasing freedom for the captives in the same way Cervantes was freed over four hundred years ago. Two of the groups active in this effort have been Christian Solidarity International and the American Anti-Slavery Group. These efforts have not always met with support from European and American officials who want to maintain good relations with Khartoum. Moreover, the government of Sudan, along with a handful of other Muslim governments, has accused those fighting the slave trade of defaming Islam. I say that is all the more reason to keep going!

In conclusion, I want to bring your attention back to Salwa al-Mutairi. You remember her, the delightful woman who wanted to restore legalized sex slavery in Kuwait? Well, a key part of that story was the fact that she advocated that "POWs" from the "Chechnyan war" be bought and sold as slaves rather than be "slaughtered." That should provide quite a bit of insight into the differences between the Western and Islamic views of war. In the West, there are many rules governing the treatment of prisoners. But Muslims waging the jihad torture and execute captives so that anyone with an Internet connection can watch. Captives exist as propaganda tools and nothing more. From that frame of mind, al-Mutairi's argument makes a certain element of sense. Why simply kill a captive when you can make a bit of profit on the side? Anything to make the Dar al-Harb weaker and strengthen the Dar al-Islam.

This series has taken us down some roads that most people in our supposedly civilized society would choose to ignore. In the next decade, I believe that we will see advocates for legalized slavery (although they would call it something different, of course) pop up in Europe and maybe even America as the Muslim communities grow bolder and increasingly radicalized. One thing is certain, however: as long as the West continues to pretend the problem doesn't exist, the worse it will get. Only honest examination of slavery, past and present, can allow us to move toward a solution to this problem. The abolition movement of the 1800s gave way to the civil rights movements of the 20th century. Will we see a similar movement in the 21st century, or is ending slave practices permitted by the Koran simply not acceptable for the politically correct "social justice" crowd?

On Vacation

This week I am on vacation, but I will be back with the final chapter in my series "Slavery and Islam" next Friday.