Joint Syrian-Russian-Iranian operations against foreign-funded and armed militant groups across Syrian territory have incrementally dismantled and frustrated the fighting capacity of groups including the so-called Islamic State, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and a myriad of other fronts coordinated and arrayed from abroad against Damascus.
With the Russian intervention in late 2015, considerable air power was applied to these militant fronts’ logistical lines extending beyond Syria’s borders. As the supplies were cut, Syrian forces and their allies were able to isolate and eliminate one stronghold after another.
Now, many of these groups face defeat within Syria, prompting their foreign sponsors into two courses of action – posing as the forces responsible for their defeat as the US and Turkey are attempting to do amid their respective, illegal incursions into Syrian territory, and creating a narrative to serve as cover for the evacuation and harboring of these militant groups elsewhere for future use.
Terrorist Organizations are Empire’s Modern Mercenaries
Just before and since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, Anglo-American interests have cultivated militant groups across its territory to divide and conquer the entire region – contributing toward Washington and London’s greater global hegemonic ambitions.
The terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda, created in part from the shattered remains of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood defeated by Hafez Al Assad in the 1980’s, would be deployed next to Afghanistan after their foreign-backed bid to overthrow the Syrian government failed.
Since then, Al Qaeda has participated in NATO operations in the Balkans, across the Middle East and North Africa, and even as far as Asia. The group operates as both a casus belli for Western intervention globally, and as a proxy force able to wage war against governments Western military forces are unable to confront directly as was the case in Libya and currently in Syria.
Al Qaeda and its various subsidiaries and affiliates – including the Islamic State – also serve in an auxiliary capacity such as in Yemen where they hold territory taken by mechanized forces from Persian Gulf invaders.
While Western narratives attempt to portray these militant fronts as independent terrorist organizations operating beyond both international law and the reach of superior Western military and intelligence capabilities, in reality, this narrative is cover for what is obvious state sponsored proxy terrorism and militancy.
The United States has all but admitted its role in the creation of these organizations as well as their ongoing role in their perpetuation. The use of US allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to launder money, weapons, training, and other forms of political and material support through has also been extensively documented.
RAND Corporation representatives recently penned an editorial in Fortune titled, “Why A Dying Islamic State Could Be An Even Bigger Threat To America,” in which they attempt to explain how, despite the Islamic State losing its territorial holdings in Syria and Iraq, the organization will continue to operate and pose as a menace to global security.
In reality, the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and other fronts will continue to persist for one sole reason – the immense multinational state sponsorship they receive from the United States, NATO, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
The Fortune editorial claims:
The liberation of Mosul and Raqqa are important initial steps in diminishing the threat from the Islamic State. Without an actual state, the Islamic State will likely lose a substantial amount of its appeal. Without a secure territorial base to operate from, it may have a harder time organizing external attacks. Yet the Islamic State, like al Qaeda before it, will continue to metastasize and seek to spread its influence once it loses its home base.
The RAND authors also claim:
If the Islamic State is to be defeated and stay defeated, military measures will need to be combined with economic, technical, and political assistance designed to improve state and local capacity. Popular grievances that have given rise to extremist movements need to be better addressed. These are not steps the United States should take alone, but Washington should lead in assembling and guiding donor coalitions working with each of the affected countries.
However, it is difficult to believe that self-proclaimed professional policymakers and experts failed to consider the source of the Islamic State’s fighting capacity – its extensive state sponsorship. No mention is made of this in the editorial, nor is any mention of this made by US, NATO, or GCC politicians, military planners, analysts, or other policymakers. It is an open secret guarded carefully with repetitive editorials and news pieces like the aforementioned RAND piece in Fortune.
With US-NATO-GCC plans frustrated in Syria by a formidable military coalition, the special interests driving this axis will inevitably seek to deploy their proxy forces where such coalitions cannot reach. Current efforts to divide and disrupt socioeconomic and political stability across all of Asia would be served well by the inclusion of veteran terrorists and militants escaping from Syrian-Russian-Iranian forces in the Middle East.
Defiant nations in Southeast Asia in particular, may find local political brush fires turned into infernos with the inclusion of the Islamic State’s shifting ranks. In Myanmar, US-Saudi backed militants are already attempting to expand violence surrounding the Rohingya crisis, likely in an attempt to create a pretext for a permanent US military presence in the country aimed at further driving a wedge between Myanmar and neighboring China.
In Thailand, inflaming its lengthy southern insurgency by transforming it from a political struggle into the same sort of intentionally sectarian and destructive conflict that has consumed Libya and Syria could help Washington rein in Bangkok. A similar strategy is likely already under way in the Philippines.
Seeing through the myth, and exposing the true nature of the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations as proxy forces serving multinational special interests, is the most important, and perhaps only way of protecting against the use of such groups to geopolitically coerce, divide, and destroy nations.
Building formidable coalitions both on the battlefield and in information space is also essential in confronting and overcoming such tactics. Attempting to capitulate to Western narratives in fear of alienating public opinion does not eliminate the treat of militant fronts entering into and destroying a nation – in fact – it only further emboldens such efforts. Nations like Libya which attempted to appease Western interests by joining the so-called “War on Terror” no longer exist as functioning states.
In the coming months, as pressure grows on Western proxies operating in Syria and Iraq, editorials like that featured in Fortune will multiply. It is important to expose what the West attempts to portray as inevitable retreat conducted solely by terrorist organizations as the Western-enabled evacuation and redeployment it truly is.
Students of the Middle Ages all know that the Holy Roman Empire was, in the words of Voltaire, ‘neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire’.
But did this agglomeration of medieval power and influence also saddle us with a bogus calendar?
Could an emperor – maybe two emperors, with the help of a friendly pope – have been responsible for shoving 297 years’ worth of utterly fictitious history into our collective consciousness, there to fester and cause problems for innocent historical researchers? What year is it, anyway?
To be clear: the Phantom Time Hypothesis, originally by Heribert Illig and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz1, states that the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III, in collusion with Pope Sylvester II, misdated the Western calendar in order to celebrate the end of the first millennium – 297 years early.
What do tree rings tell us about a possible media conspiracy? What was Charlemagne – ideal ruler, or corporate myth? What secrets does the Aachen treasure room hold in addition to Jesus’ underwear?
Inquiring minds want to know. The rest of you will just have to come along for the ride.
The Dark Ages – Who Turned Out the Lights?
The term ‘Dark Ages’ is in disrepute to describe the period between 500 and 1000 CE – Common Era. (For those unfamiliar with this politically correct term, the years are equivalent to ‘Anno Domini’, or ‘AD’2).
During this period, it was formerly believed, Western Europeans did very little that would interest historians, or indeed anybody not directly related to them.
They produced almost no literature, art, or cultural artefacts. They made no appreciable progress in agriculture or technology. They didn’t even have any interesting wars.
This bothered scholars.
What bothered them even more was that in the 7th, 8th, and 9th Centuries, there were no records to speak of.
Cities that one might assume to have been continuously inhabited, such as the German towns that were formerly Roman colonies, seem to have been empty of, say, market activity.
One could only conclude that, while there were obviously buildings there, churches and such, nobody ever came to town to sell a pig. Or at least, kept it a secret.
Then there were the Jews, who usually kept good community records. In the 6th Century, they were everywhere in Western Europe.
For about three centuries after that, they seem to have disappeared – only to show up again in exactly the same places. What could explain this? A shortage of parchment? A game of historical hide-and-seek?
By the 1980s, some people were taking a look at these historical puzzles, and asking themselves a few questions:
In a number of fields – archaeology, history, palaeography – scholars had questions. Faced with the obvious answer that ‘we don’t know, it just happened’, they wrote their studies around the puzzles – until someone challenged their assumptions.
The resulting mini-firestorm of discussion has not resulted in a movement to change the calendar from 2011 to 1714, but the Phantom Time Hypothesis, as it came to be called, has provided food for thought.
The Least You Need to Know about the Middle Ages
Before examining the claims of the Phantom Time Hypothesis, it is well to review the following unquestioned facts about the Middle Ages:
With these facts in mind, it is possible to follow the arguments of the Phantom Time Hypothesis.
The Phantom Time Hypothesis – An Outrageous Conspiracy Theory?
The Phantom Time Hypothesis, as advanced by German researcher Heribert Illig, and expanded by Dr Hans-Ulrich Niemitz of the Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur in Leipzig, claims the following:
From the evidence, it is obvious that Constantine, Otto, and Sylvester had means, motive and opportunity to perpetrate what they may not have regarded as a crime. But is there any evidence that they did so?
Although there is no ‘smoking gun’ in the form of, say, a confession – they would hardly have left a notarised statement lying about – there are some suspicious facts. One of these is the whole controversy between the Julian and Gregorian calendars.
Heribert Illig first noticed that when the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1582, it was necessary to omit ten days to make up for the fact that the old Julian year was actually about ten minutes too long7.
These ten days (and a few more omitted since 1582) account for the reason Russian Christmas is later than Western Christmas8.
However, calculations based on the year that the Julian calendar was introduced (45 BCE) suggest that it should have been 13 days, not 10.
The figure of 10 suggests that the Julian calendar had been in operation for about 340 years less than the 1,626 years you would expect to find between 45 BCE and 1582 CE. Perhaps there is something wrong with the count of these years?
On the other hand, if the calendar had been correct in 325 CE, then ten days would be the correct number to omit.
As the detractors of the Phantom Time Hypothesis theory point out, this happens to be the date of the Nicene Council, which had so much trouble figuring out when Easter was.
The detractors figure that settles that – they claim the Gregorian calendar makers were only trying to get the calendar to agree with the state of affairs back in the 4th Century, when they first set the Easter date (though not without a lot of arguing).
Not so, replied Professor Niemitz, who points out that there is a problem with the placement of the equinoxes as well as the date of Easter:
Some historians have noticed this contradiction, but they solve it this way: the scholars in Caesar’s time reckoned a different date for the equinox (the day in spring, where day and night have the same length). Yet it can be proved that the Romans used the same date for the equinox as we do today, i.e. the 21st of March. — from ‘Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?‘ by Hans-Ulrich Niemitz.
That, of course, is not that. Those who oppose having their minds messed with by inquiring Germans have raised other objections to the Phantom Time Hypothesis. Phantom Time Hypothesisers have replied to them. Let the reader judge.
How Many Holes Are There in This Theory?
It’s a very simple question, isn’t it? How could anyone insert time into a chronology? We know how much time has passed since the death of Caesar, right? We can prove this independently? Let us see.
One way to check the date of things is by using radiocarbon dating to determine the age of artefacts. Detractors of the Phantom Time Hypothesis point this out, and say, ‘Pish and tosh. We know how old things are from carbon dating.’
The problem with this: radiocarbon dating uses dendrochronology to calibrate itself, and dendrochronology has a few problems of its own.
Dendrochronology is dating things by examining tree rings. Trees lay down rings season by season. This growth varies according to prevailing conditions. If enough is known about the age of the tree, its location, conditions, etc, the wood can be used for dating.
Problems: there are not many trees that are old enough; there are not many trees of the same species; wood from buildings may have been lying around for a long time, may have been reused, etc.
It turns out that dendrochronologists have been using written sources to help ‘correct’ their timelines9.
This might be a problem if we want to use dendrochronology to correct a written source.
Another way to check the date of things is to go by the stars, which are not susceptible to falsification by ambitious emperors and clerics.
Unfortunately, the debate is still on as to whether written accounts of such phenomena as eclipses are accurate – or whether historians eager to correct their own timelines have been grasping at straws.
‘This looks like Halley’s comet, so it must have been that year…’ The jury is still out as to whether this information can clear up the question. The research required would be massive.
Another objection to the Phantom Time Hypothesis is that Europe did not exist in a vacuum. If someone had changed the calendar, wouldn’t anyone else – say the Muslims? – have noticed?
It is hard to say. Some areas of early Islamic history might actually be simplified by the discovery that the Western dates had been altered.
It might explain inscriptions on early Islamic coins – the ones that showed Muhammed meeting with a Persian emperor who supposedly died a century before. Similar claims are made about ‘missing time’ in Jewish records.
Another possible means of comparison would be Chinese history – which is notably long, with accurate astronomical observations10.
All these areas would require an enormous amount of research either to validate or refute the theory, research that is unlikely to be undertaken by anyone not interested in rewriting the timeline.
A theory is a theory because it is not an undisputed fact. A theory is a possible explanation. Does the Phantom Time Hypothesis fit this description? Yes.
Could it be definitively proven/disproven? Possibly. Is anyone interested enough to do the research? Time will tell.
Charles the Great as Media Invention?
The greatest surprise of the Phantom Time Hypothesis is the assertion, by Niemitz and others, that Charlemagne was an invented character who lived in an imaginary time.
This claim startles at first – after all, Charlemagne was the subject of no fewer than two medieval biographies (although both were written after his death).
Inventing heroes is hardly a new human enterprise, but Otto III not only revered Charlemagne, he found his body.
According to Otto Lomello, who was there when the tomb of the great Carolingian was opened in the numinous Year of Our Lord 1000:
So we went in to Charles. He did not lie, as the dead otherwise do, but sat as if he were living. He was crowned with a golden crown and held in his gloved hands a sceptre; the fingernails had penetrated through the gloves and stuck out. Above him was a canopy of limestone and marble.
Entering, we broke through this. Upon our entrance, a strong smell struck us. Kneeling, we gave Emperor Charles our homage, and put in order the damage that had been done. Emperor Charles had not lost any of his members to decay, except only the tip of his nose.
Emperor Otto replaced this with gold, took a tooth from Charles’s mouth, walled up the entrance to the chamber, and withdrew again. – Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, VII, book III, 3211
Allegedly, other emperors later visited this tomb. In 1165, Friedrich Barbarossa removed the remains and had them interred in a sarcophagus (allegedly) belonging to Caesar Augustus.
Friedrich II (allegedly) put the bones in a casket of gold and silver. (He put something in there, but at this point, it is not safe to say what12.)
People visit these relics of Charlemagne in Aachen, just as they visit the other great Aachen relics, the ones which are displayed every seven years: St Mary’s cloak, Christ’s swaddling (baby) clothes, St John the Baptist’s beheading cloth, and Christ’s loincloth (or undergarment).
Perhaps it requires a conspiracy theory to doubt the authenticity of these items. Perhaps not. If one can be invented, cannot the other?
Reputable historians, of course, assume Charlemagne to have been a real person – an amazingly talented king who expanded the Frankish empire and accomplished many wonderful things.
Historian Will Durant, while acknowledging the legends surrounding this ‘greatest of medieval kings’, considers his battles and social reforms in detail.
Durant describes Charlemagne this way:
‘He was of German blood and speech, and shared some characteristics of his people – strength of body, courage of spirit, pride of race, and a crude simplicity many centuries apart from the urbane polish of the modern French13.’
Could the truth about this greatest king since Arthur lie somewhere in between total acceptance of the received version, and the assumption that the monarch was invented out of whole cloth?
Much more research would be needed – and the past is a dodgy character, kind of hard to pin down.
What Difference Does It Make?
What difference does it make if the Phantom Time Hypothesis is real? None at all. Calendars will still bear a date in the 21st Century. No one will be sued.
It is extremely doubtful that anyone will suggest that Otto III be burned in effigy, or that the Kaiserdom in Aachen be desanctified.
It makes no difference at all. If the Holy Roman Emperor sneaked in 297 years’ worth of made-up history, the only people who will care are a handful of medievalists, who might possibly say, ‘Oh, that’s why I can’t find the sheep count.’
It makes no difference, because timekeeping is a social construct. There is no Y2K problem here. The planet moves as it moves, independent of Western notions of marking the days.
It is an interesting conundrum, however, and one that might make the historian reflect that our works and pomps might not be as time-honoured as we think they are. The distant past might not be as distant as we imagine.
Oh, and a lot of our ancestors were liars.
Read for Yourself
To follow the argument for the Phantom Time Hypothesis, read ‘Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?‘ by the late Prof Dr Hans-Ulrich Niemitz.
Those who wish to investigate more deeply, and who can read German, may enjoy this web page, entitled ‘Fantomzeit‘, by Fabian Fritzsche.
Don’t read German? How about that elegant amalgam of German syntax and English vocabulary (well, sort of) that proliferates on the internet?
A little patience and good will renders this charming addition to the discussion both informative and suggestive for further research.
For a thorough discussion of the architectural issues involved (as well as a tour of the calendar problem from Julius Caesar on), see ‘The Invented Middle Ages‘ by Heribert Illig.
Refutations of the Phantom Time Hypothesis have not actually been very thorough or painstaking, being mostly of the scornful variety. Most arguments available online, at any rate, are nicely summed up in this article on the ‘Straight Dope‘ site.
Although the Phantom Time Hypothesis meets with general disbelief on the part of official scholarship (perhaps because this theory meets with general disbelief), it is difficult to find accessible texts that explain in detail why it is unlikely to be true.
For a more serious negative critique of the Phantom Time Hypothesis, you may need to read German (again).
Physicist Stephan Matthiesen’s commentary, Erfundenes Mittelalter – fruchtlose These! [transl. ‘Invented Middle Ages? A Fruitless Thesis!’], which appeared in the journal Skeptiker in 2001, offers refutations of major points of the theory as put forth by Heribert Illig, and characterises Illig’s writing style as ‘tiresome’ (‘ermüdend’).
In this article, Matthiesen is replying specifically to Illig’s version of the theory, and not to Niemitz’s. Whether scholars will continue to take the time to refute this theory, or merely move on to other questions, remains to be seen.
via http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A85654957 / References:
1. Others have since chimed in.
2. This Entry discusses a controversy over timelines. In order to keep things straight and avoid confusion, the term ‘CE’, or Common Era, will be used.
The Entry is taking no definitive stance as to the veracity of Dr Niemitz’s claims about the inaccuracy of this dating, the correctness of the calculations of Dennis the Short, or the search for the Historical Jesus.
3. Latin for ‘Who is getting something out of this?’ or in modern terms, ‘Follow the money’.
4. At one time, there were at least two Crowns of Thorns, and about 700 separate thorns, all duly venerated. Many of these thorns were only third class relics, though.
5. Some of these liquefy, in their containers, on certain feast days.
6. Prester John was famous in the Middle Ages, but not a real person. He was reputed to be a descendant of the Magi and ruler of a fabulous kingdom. The fabulous part was right.
7. 11 minutes and 15 seconds, to be more exact.
8. In Russia, the Gregorian calendar was first adopted by the Soviet Union. The Russian Orthodox Church continues to follow the Julian calendar.
9. Also, for complicated reasons, keeping a lot of their data secret. This has frustrated researcher Lars-Åke-Larsson, who has done extensive work with dendrochronology in a (so far futile) attempt to refute the Phantom Time Hypothesis.
10. Is refuting this theory as simple a matter as stating, with Stephen Dutch of the University of Wisconsin, that ‘…there’s absolutely no way you can just drop 297 years from the calendar in the last 2,000 years and not notice it’?
11. Quoted from Wikipedia, Aachen Cathedral, accessed 26.04.11 (CE).
12. The whole question of what Charlemagne’s body was doing sitting up in his tomb is interesting. What Otto was doing, allegedly, was looking for the crown of Hungary, to give to the new Hungarian king. Romanian sources variously date the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathians to the 7th or 10th Century.
Non-believers in Phantom Time say half the historians in Romania just couldn’t count. Otto ‘found’ the crown. He also ‘found’ a body that smelled bad, but was miraculously uncorrupted after a very long time.
One researcher, John F Moffit, believes it might have been a wax effigy, like those at Madame Tussaud’s. It might be worth noting that incorruptible corpses have different traditional meanings in Eastern and Western Europe.
In the West, if a corpse didn’t rot, its owner was holy. In the Balkans, a corpse found not to have decomposed in about 20 years was considered to be a vampire, and dealt with accordingly. (This practice continued into at least the early 20th Century.)