Monday, March 17, 2025

 

The Genesis of Sectarian Violence in Syria

Reprinted from The Kucinich Report.

While many in Washington claim to defend Christianity and Western values, their policies have led to the systematic annihilation of some of the world’s oldest Christian communities. The same politicians who posture as defenders of faith have not just turned a blind eye to the suffering of Christians in the Middle East, from Palestine’s West Bank and Gaza to Lebanon and Syria, they have chosen instead to fund their murderers.

U.S. tax dollars funneled through the CIA and USAID, have played a pivotal role in arming and enabling extremist factions whose ascendance has resulted in atrocities.

The forces of Syria’s new self-proclaimed “interim president” a Salafist, Sunni Muslim who currently goes by the name Ahmed al-Shara, over this past weekend lined up civilians, both Alawites and Christians, against the wall and executed them. Their crime: Infidelity to Salafism, a strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Elizabeth and I have visited Syria many times. We have traveled through it and experienced a beautiful, secular country where being Syrian was more important than a difference in faith, where communities attending churches, synagogues and mosques lived as one.

Syria has been torn apart over the last decades by external interventionism and ignorance giving rise to extremism and the worst humanitarian disaster of the 21st Century.

Many Syrian Christians historically supported the Assad government and its Ba’athist secular ideology because it guaranteed religious freedom and protected minorities.

Unlike certain Islamist movements, the Assad regime maintained a secular state where Christians could practice their faith without persecution. Christians held positions in the government, military, and business sectors.

The Alawites are a religious minority in Syria, with smaller communities in Lebanon and Turkey. The Assad family which ruled from 1970 to earlier this year is Alawite.

The Alawite practice of Islam incorporates elements of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Christianity. It is distinct from mainstream Islamic sects. Former President Assad promoted secularism consistent with Alawite support for secular governance.

Soul-searing videos have surfaced from the mass murders of recent days: Alawite and Christian Syrians pleading for their lives while being dehumanized, ordered to crawl on all fours and bark like dogs to prepare for “dying like dogs,” in a fusillade of bullets. The killers are seen being cautioned to turn off their phones and not to share such videos so as not to turn world opinion against them.

Public relations are always to be desired to cover up cold-blooded murder and its designs and to protect the West’s fantasy that the new self-declared rulers of Syria are kinder and gentler than the propagandized descriptions of their predecessors.

How did the situation get to this point?

The ongoing humanitarian crisis and severe sectarian violence in Syria are direct outcomes of policies dating back to the “Clean Break” doctrine of 1996, by a D.C. think tank which counseled Benjamin Netanyahu to make a “clean break” from “the previous government’s ‘peace process’.” (their quotes) which it saw as a serious weakness.

The Clean Break doctrine laid the groundwork for aggressive policies toward Syria which emerged through an effort coordinated by the Bush White House as several authors of the Clean Break strategy ascended to federal government policy-making positions.

The “Clean Break” approach was further advanced by Hillary Clinton, who, as Secretary of State, together with CIA Director David Petraeus, proposed arming Syrian rebels.

The White House rejected the plan, but, somehow, the momentum generated to overthrow Assad was propelled by the CIA, President Obama’s 2012 presidential directive, which explicitly called for the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, merely authorized what was underway without his permission.

It was not the last time the CIA found a way to subvert Obama in Syria. On September 12, 2016, a ceasefire agreement was negotiated by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, aimed at the two major powers cooperating to limit extremist groups.

According to a source familiar with the arrangements, Robert Malley, Obama’s special Middle East envoy, was planning to fly to Lebanon and then to travel to Damascus to meet with Assad, to capitalize on the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire and open the possibility of a new direction in U.S.-Syrian relations.

The very next day a US airstrike killed over 100 Syrian soldiers. Malley’s trip was cancelled and the ceasefire ended within hours.

The plan to oust Assad went into high gear. Obama was played by Hillary Clinton and the CIA in Syria, just as he was played by them in Libya.

Judicial Watch obtained documents which proved the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was aware that the strategy of supporting opposition forces – largely comprised of Salafist and extremist factions, including Al-Qaeda affiliates – would lead directly to the establishment of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria, with a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.

The DIA explicitly stated this outcome was precisely “what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The Clean Break, Benjamin Netanyahu, the CIA, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Defense Intelligence Agency are all responsible for the disintegration in Syria which has resulted in extreme sectarian violence. Most of those who are being killed today were then just children, in a country where communities attending mosques, churches and synagogues existed side by side.

U.S. tax dollars, funneled through the CIA and USAID, have played a pivotal role in arming and enabling extremist factions whose ascendance resulted in the atrocities.

In Syria, America’s Middle East machinations scaled tragic heights. Under the Obama administration, the CIA launched “Timber Sycamore” in 2012, a covert operation that funneled billions of dollars in weapons and training to so-called “moderate” connected to Al-Queda, Al-Nusra and ISIS. A good deal of weapons paid for by U.S. taxpayers and intended to be used against Syria, ended up in the for sale on the black market.

The American people were told a fairy tale that we were supporting freedom fighters against a dictator. What we actually accomplished was funding the terrorists who now murder Christians, massacre Alawite villages, and impose radical Islamic rule in areas they seize.

It was a reckless intervention, driven by a geopolitical obsession with weakening Iran and Russia. It has not only destroyed Syria but it has also created a breeding ground for global terrorism.

The vaunted Timber Sycamore escapade was said to be eliminated by the first Trump Administration, yet the intent of Timber Sycamore, ousting Assad, continued under the Biden Administration. For those students of dendrology, the sycamore is a tree characterized by weak limbs and large leaves which decay slowly upon falling to earth.

As I reflect on America’s disastrous policies in Syria, I am left with a haunting question: Why would the United States pursue strategies that have led to the slaughter of Christians and Alawites, the destruction of ancient communities, and the triumph of extremism?

For years, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I stood on the floor of Congress and sounded the alarm about reckless regime-change policies. I opposed the neoconservative “Clean Break” strategy.

I spoke out against the Iraq War in 2002, knowing it would unleash sectarian violence and provide a breeding ground for jihadist groups. I rejected the illegal U.S. intervention in Libya in 2011, warning that removing Gaddafi would turn Libya into a failed state and open the door to Islamic extremists.

Each time, I was ignored, dismissed, or even vilified by those Washington insiders eager to remake the world in their own image, (and to cash in while doing so) without regard to the human cost.

I demanded transparency.

I demanded accountability.

I called for a congressional investigation into the CIA’s role in arming extremist groups.

I was met with official silence and media-induced public ridicule.

In 2013, I opposed Obama’s plan to bomb Syria, warning that U.S. military intervention would do nothing but strengthen jihadists. When I traveled to Syria in 2017 with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, I spoke directly with Christian leaders, civilians, and government officials who told us what the American media refused to report: The U.S. was not helping the Syrian people – it was destroying them.

I came back determined to expose the truth, to tell the American people that our tax dollars were funding a war that targeted innocent people, people whose families had lived in the region for centuries.

Most in mainstream media, every loyal to war narratives, dismissed the findings. The bipartisan political establishment stayed the course, ensuring that weapons and resources continued to flow into the hands of extremists.

Now, in the aftermath of Assad’s fall, the worst-case scenario has come to pass. Cities that once housed some of the world’s oldest Christian communities lie in ruins, their people slaughtered or driven into exile. Christians and Alawites are labeled heretics by the very groups America helped empower.

And I ask again: Why?

Why would America champion policies that lead to the killing of Christians, the destruction of churches, the massacre of Alawites and the rise of radical jihadists? Why did our leaders knowingly aid those who murdered the very people America claimed to want to protect?

The answer lies in a corrupt, immoral foreign policy dictated not by ethics, human rights, or even national security, but by the interests of the military-industrial complex and strategists who view human lives as pawns in a geopolitical chess game.

This tragic situation in Syria is but one example of in the catalogue of chaos which is U.S. foreign policy; Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Lebanon in the 1980s, Afghanistan in the 1980s-90s, to Iraq post-2003 are notable examples of similar perfidy, though these debacles are by no means exclusive.

U.S. foreign policy all too often reveals calculations to excite and exploit sectarian, religious, or ethnic divisions to achieve vainglorious geopolitical goals which blowback in disintegration and defeat.

Like a coterie of Snidley Whiplashes “Curses, foiled again!” our policy geniuses ignore the devastation they have wrought and proceed headlong into plotting the next disasters: future prolonged civil wars, systemic persecution, massive human suffering, refugee crises, and enduring political instability.

The deliberate exacerbation of sectarian tensions has repeatedly left behind weakened states, emboldened extremist groups, and countless innocent victims. It perpetuates human suffering on a vast scale. It has severely damaged America’s global reputation. It has fostered extremism, instability, and ongoing conflict.

I have spent my career fighting against these wars of aggression. I have cautioned that regime-change operations never lead to peace, only to greater suffering.

Now, with the fall of the Assad government to extremists, the nightmare that I and others warned about has become reality. The Syrian war, fueled by U.S. intervention and covert operations, has led to the very outcome that interventionists claimed they were trying to prevent—a bloodbath.

The neocons, interventionists, and war profiteers have achieved their aims, their machinations whitewashed by a reckless and complicit mainstream media whose ignorant naïveté or willful deception has paved the way for these atrocities. Another government toppled, another nation in ruins, and another generation of innocent people paying the price for metastatic arrogance.

Americans believe in religious freedom. Our government does not practice that abroad.

Americans believe in human dignity. Our government pulverizes it in other countries, with our tax dollars.

Americans want peace. But we will never have peace until we confront the reality that our own government has been spending trillions of our precious tax dollars in furtherance of stirring conflict and igniting wars, to the benefit of a few and to the manifest detriment of the rest of us.

I did all I could while in office. Now I pray for those suffering under the yoke of oppression we have caused, and pray for America to change course.

The Kucinich Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.



US and EU Supported al-Qaeda in Syria


But no longer do


The key decision was when Barack Obama finally decided in December 2012 to arm al-Qaeda in Syria so as to bring down Syria’s Government. That culminated a U.S. policy since 1949, which was aimed against Russia and against Palestinians.

It is an established fact that U.S. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Hagel, and the rest of Obama’s Administration, were seeking to replace the non-sectarian Assad Government in Syria, by a government that would please the fundamentalist-Sunni, or “Salafist,” Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia. Throughout the U.S.-and-allied media, the only problem in Syria was Bashar al-Assad, who led that country, and therefore regime-change was supposed to be the solution for Syria, though the only Syrians who supported overthrowing Assad were a small minority, jihadists led by Syria’s al-Qaeda, and in Syria’s northeast, separatist Kurds also supported overthrowing Assad, because they wanted to create a Kurdistan, which would be the first Kurdish nation. The press throughout the U.S. empire hid from the public the fact that the U.S. was supporting al-Qaeda in Syria. For example, on 13 January 2017, the BBC, one of the U.S. Government’s most reliable propaganda agencies (though not from the U.S. Government), headlined “Obama’s Syria legacy: Measured diplomacy, strategic explosion“, and opened:

How did a man who took office espousing a new era of engagement with the world end up a spectator to this century’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe? …

Despite the pressing moral imperative, Obama remained convinced a military intervention would be a costly failure.

He believed there was no way the US could help win the war [a civil war there, which he himself had helped to produce] and keep the peace without a commitment of tens of thousands of troops. The battlefield was too complex: fragmented into dozens of armed groups and supported by competing regional and international powers.

However, on 12 August 2012, Obama was warned by the Defense Intelligence Agency that “THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION [to Syria’s Government] WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE [actually replace] THE SYRIAN REGIME.” Then in December 2012, Obama settled upon his policy of arming the jihadists in Syria under al-Qaeda’s leadership, and using circuitous ways of getting to the jihadists weapons from around the world, so as to hide America’s involvement as the chief coordinator and funder. The world’s largest Embassy, America’s in Iraq, was running this operation. Each year, the main decisions for this operation were being made not only by Obama but at the annual private Bilderberg conferences, which bring together over a hundred top aristocrats from each NATO country so as to provide the coming year’s guidance to NATO’s Secretary General. Although some of the attendees there were currently holding a public office in their country, many did not but instead were multibillionaires or otherwise top consultants to billionaires; so, the Bilderberg conferences are officially private, not at all public; and, in the United States and its allied countries, there is nothing illegal about major decisions concerning war and peace and other major Governmental policies being determined entirely in secret and off-the-record, in these ‘democracies’. From a policy-standpoint in the collective West — this bastion of ‘democracies’ against ‘tyrannies’ — the U.S.-and-allied countries have developed a very efficient system that essentially no longer needs the public, who are no longer real participants to be informed but have become instead mere subjects to be deceived and pay taxes so as to fund these Governments to do the work that those masters (U.S.-and-allied billionaires) want to be done (even if for ONLY private reasons).

On March 11, I headlined “America won in Syria and continues to win there; the massacres are now accelerating.” Because Obama-Biden-Trump got their Syrian al-Qaeda proxy-army to final victory and it is doing there what al-Qaeda does, this is an American-Government success-story that America’s Government DON’T want to brag about nor even to acknowledge publicly. We slaughtered madly in Korea and in Vietnam and in Iraq and in Afghanistan and in Libya, and by using coups and proxy-armies in Ukraine and in so many other countries; but America’s victory in Syria is one that ‘our’ ‘news’-media are NOT reporting, because they don’t want us to know about it.

Eric Zuesse is an investigative historian. His new book, America's Empire of Evil: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. Read other articles by Eric.

Kiss My Ass, I’m Irish: Celtic Pride Against

White Supremacy



March 17, 2025
Facebook

Image by Lukas Eggers.

White supremacy remains a very potent weapon for the powerful in this country and I don’t think that the far left should stand alone in confronting it. Many of my more libertarian readers tend to cringe at such notions and I can’t completely blame them. Sadly, there are a good number of self-proclaimed leftists who use combatting white supremacy as an excuse for building up the state, but this doesn’t change the fact that traditionally white supremacy has been a far more lethal excuse to do the exact same thing, and it still is.

It’s not even that the powerful in this country are necessarily racist, many are but for the most part bigotry is just an easy way to manipulate poor people into forfeiting their agency to authoritarian structures in the name of combatting other poor people.

Donald Trump’s current war at the border is probably the best example of this in progress. The economy is shit and Americans in general are getting fucked left and right in every hole that bleeds. In a sane world, Wall Street welfare queens like Donald Trump and Elon Musk would be the focus of their rage. Instead, these same vile gangsters have hoodwinked half the country into getting behind an insane conspiracy to quadruple the size of the federal police state so they can sic gestapo on itinerate border hoppers who we’re told are destroying this country with a massive crime wave that quite simply does not exist.

After surging during the economic shitstorm of the Pandemic, violent crime rates in this country have largely dropped back to where they were in 2019 and there is zero evidence that increased immigration at the time had anything to do with sparking that temporary bump. Quite the contrary, violent crime appears to have spiked across the Western Hemisphere because of the Pandemic, hitting hardest in the most impoverished nations of Central America and provoking many of their people to flee to safer sections of the map. All available statistics actually suggest that not only are undocumented immigrants less likely to commit violent crime than natives, but they are also more likely to be the victims of it too.

Sadly, none of these inconvenient facts stopped Donald Trump from using the potent imagery of increasingly dark vagrants spilling across the Rio Grande to get elected by wide margins of my fellow libertarians. However, I don’t take this shit so personally simply because my post-left anarchist inclinations have driven me to adopt increasingly libertarian tactics to combat the white power state.

I tend to take this shit a little more personally than your average libertarian honkey, especially around Saint Patrick’s Day, because I am a historically literate nerd of Irish Catholic ancestry, and I am well aware of the fact that my people were the original wetbacks in this country before we assimilated beneath a banner of white supremacy.

You wouldn’t think it by looking at a South Philly Trump rally, but Irish people weren’t even considered white when we first stepped foot on American soil. After centuries of violent colonial rule under the British Empire, my ancestors left their homeland in the mid-19th century to escape a blight that English authorities deliberately manipulated into a genocidal famine. About a million of us died and millions more flooded America’s shores aboard floating coffins, starving and riddled with disease, and when we got here, we faced a lot of the same perils faced by Hondurans and Guatemalans today.

We were subjected to alarmist tabloid headlines and baseless conspiracy theories. We were herded into squalid tenements and targeted by violent mobs. And we were singled out for the simple fact that there was just too damn many of us to assimilate into America’s cultural purgatory of Anglo-Saxon conformity all at once.  In fact, an entire political party was built on this hysteria; the so-called American Party, better known as the Know Nothings, who waged a holy war on Irish Catholics both literally and electorally beneath the banner of “Americans must rule America!”

This proto-MAGA sect swept the country in the mid-1850s, electing over 100 congressmen as well as mayors in major cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago. They eventually even took the White House with our 19th president, Millard Filmore, being a former Know Nothing. During this time, these pseudo-populist despots passed egregiously anti-democratic laws that mandated teaching the King James Bible in public schools and barred naturalized citizens from voting unless they had spent at least 21 years in the country.

They also literally murdered people, especially at the ballot box, like they did at the Bloody Monday Riots of 1855 in Louisville, Kentucky, when Catholic homes were burnt to the ground and as many as 100 Irish people were killed in cold blood while thousands more were left with little choice but to flee the city for their lives.

So, what the fuck happened then? How did my people go from being called “white niggers” and digging ditches in the ghettoes alongside our darker counterparts to being a major part of the same system that was once devoted to expelling us from its shores by any means necessary? Well, we did the same thing that the Italians and the Jews did; we got busy being white. We achieved this dubious goal in a number of ways but most of them essentially amounted to us convincing our masters that we could be trusted to do their bidding for them.

We murdered our fellow Catholics during the Mexican-American War when 40% of the United States Army was made up of immigrants. We rose up the ranks of the New England chapters of the Democratic Party by becoming the loudest advocates for chattel slavery north of the Mason-Dixon Line. And we dutifully savaged the next influx of American refugees, leading violent race riots against Chinese railway workers accused of stealing our jobs.

So, now Irish Catholics can stand proud as white people but was it really worth it? What did we as a people really gain from this Faustian bargain beyond a slightly lower rank on the police state’s shitlist? The right to identify with the same globalist Anglo-Saxon monoculture that kept our people in chains for centuries and continues to divide our ancestral homeland?

For this we forfeited a proud culture of Celtic pride built around agrarian peasant resistance to colonial rule. We sacrificed everything that made us Irish just to conform to a crass commercial culture that still fundamentally hates us, that paints us as drunkards and mooks and turns our sacred holidays like Saint Patrick’s Day into an excuse for Protestant frat boys to binge themselves sick on green beer and vomit into plastic leprechaun hats.

This is the other side of whiteness that the left often forgets to acknowledge. The first ethnicities that the master race erased were actually the European peasant cultures that they reduced to a single color. There is no such thing as white culture. This is nothing but a purposely vague conglomeration of secular universalist Protestant hogwash that essentially amounts to little more than kneejerk conformity and an evangelical devotion to institutional power.

That and the constantly evolving demonization of the “other” which is basically just any outgroup that fails to comply with its own erasure and generally makes the world too diverse to govern. That used to be us, and as far as I’m concerned it still should be.

We were all minorities once, a million little tribes scattered to four corners of the wind. This only became a problem when a few powerful people decided that just one city state full of servants wasn’t enough to satiate their power lust and decided to build empires spanning many tribes so they could play God with the poor people in the next village too. From this rapidly expanding cesspool came America and from America came the concept of the white race, invented by the same imperialists who sacked Ireland so they could sack Virginia too.

During the early days of American colonialism there was no black or white. Slaves and servants came in a wide variety of colors and their status could evolve through subordination to the current puritanical traditions favored at the time by the royals back home in London. It wasn’t even totally unheard of to find slaveowners of African descent provided that they said their prayers and paid their taxes.

Then a wealthy landowner by the name of Nathaniel Bacon decided that he was tired of kicking up his fortune to the Virginia colonial elites and formed a militia made up predominantly of European indentured servants and African slaves to overthrow the government. Bacon’s Rebellion quickly got out of hand however and became something of a multicultural populist referendum on life under empire. The uprising was suppressed relatively quickly but not before Bacon’s unruly slave army had succeeded in burning Jamestown to the ground.

The planter class got scared and sought to divide the peasantry against each other. They did this by inventing whiteness as an ethnic concept. And just like that, all Europeans were spared the whip while those Africans deemed Black were reduced to a permanent slave caste.

But not every European embraced assimilation. Some of us wanted to remain ungovernable. And some of us were even insulted at the very notion of becoming complicit in reducing other human beings to property. This included a handful of Irish Catholic conscripts during the Mexican American War who deserted their posts to join the Mexican Army in resisting the Protestant expansion of chattel slavery in Texas. These unruly Micks ended up forming a ferocious artillery unit known appropriately as Saint Patrick’s Battalion and while many were captured and executed as traitors, they didn’t die white servants of American imperialism, they died free, and they died Irish.

I may be but a genderfuck heretic, but this is what I celebrate on Saint Patrick’s Day, a culture of proud peasant renegades who stood with the oppressed not just because it’s the honorable thing to do but because it’s the only way to break free from the shallow culture of our ancestral oppressors. So, if you’re truly as proud of being Irish as I am then you’ll join me in standing with the latest class of wetbacks and spit your ill-gotten whiteness back in the face of the Know Nothings of the GOP.

The only thing great about America is all the weird little tribes who resist it. So, you motherfuckers can keep your white power and kiss my ass, because I’m not white, I’m Irish.

Nicky Reid is an agoraphobic anarcho-genderqueer gonzo blogger from Central Pennsylvania and assistant editor for Attack the System. You can find her online at Exile in Happy Valley.

St. Patrick’s Day: Seven things you didn't know about the patron saint of Ireland 

How much do you know about St. Patrick?
Copyright Public Domain - DAMIEN EAGERS / AFP
By Laiba Mubashar
Published on 

There’s more to this holiday than just an excuse to drink pints of Guinness...

For more than 1000 years, St. Patrick’s Day has been celebrated in Ireland every year on 17 March.

Over the years, the religious holiday commemorating the death of Saint Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, has metamorphosed into a day of celebrating Irish culture through parades, music, special foods, dances and a lot of green - the colour commonly associated with the saint.

Many symbols and legends associated with Ireland such as leprechauns and shamrocks come from Saint Patrick. Credited for bringing Christianity to the then-pagan Ireland, Saint Patrick used Celtic symbols such as leprechauns, believed to be meddlesome fairies, to connect the country to Christianity. Legend has it that he chose Shamrocks (three-leaved clovers) as a symbol of the Church and used its three leaves to explain the concept of the Holy Trinity to his followers.

Today, Saint Patrick’s Day is celebrated worldwide in more than 200 countries. It is a national holiday in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the British overseas territory, Montserrat - both of which have inhabitants with Irish descent.

In the US, the Chicago river is dyed green annually on Saint Patrick’s Day using 40 pounds of dye (down from the original 100 to minimize environmental damage) and the river stays green for a few hours - down from the original duration of a week.

St. Patrick’s Day is also celebrated by the likes of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Argentina, especially by the Irish diaspora.

But who was Saint Patrick and why is he so famous?

Here are seven facts about St. Patrick you may not know:

1. Saint Patrick was not Irish

Kilbennan St.Benins Church Window - St.PatrickPublic Domain

St. Patrick was born in Britain - not Ireland - in the late 4th century.

At age 16, he was kidnapped by Irish raiders who sold him as a slave to tend sheep. He escaped, went back to Britain, and took refuge at a monastery. Years later, he became a priest and travelled across Europe, studying Christianity for 16 years.

Eventually, he returned to Ireland to convert the then-pagan country to Christianity.

2. Saint Patrick’s colour was blue - NOT green

Badge of the Order of St Patrick  Public Domain

While today we associate St. Patrick – and everything Irish – with the colour green, the saint was originally depicted wearing blue robes. In fact, that particular shade of blue (known today as azure blue) was originally called “St. Patrick’s blue”.

Green became popular in the 18th century when discontent with English rule grew and the Irish independence movement started using the Shamrock (linked to St. Patrick) as a symbol of unity and resistance. The colour green became a symbol of sympathy with Irish independence.

However, today, azure blue - or rather, St. Patrick’s blue - remains Ireland's official heraldic colour.

3. His real name was not Patrick

St. Patrick’s original name was Maewyn Succat and he was born to Christian parents in Roman Britain.

His father was a deacon and his grandfather, a priest. But St. Patrick (according to his own account) was not religious as a child. He was renamed Patricus after becoming a priest which he then changed to Patrick upon his return to Ireland.

4. Saint Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland

Depictions of St. Patrick driving the snakes out of IrelandPublic Domain

Popular legend has it that St. Patrick stood on a hilltop, Croagh Patrick (now an important site of pilgrimage in Ireland), and banished all the snakes from Ireland using a wooden staff. Over 100,000 people climb the holy mountain every year.

However, scientists say that the island nation was never home to any snakes.

The “banishing of the snakes”, however, could be true on a metaphorical level in the eradication of paganism from Ireland and the triumph of Christianity.

5. Saint Patrick's Day was originally a religious holiday, not a day to party

Today, St. Patrick's Day is frequently used as an excuse to party and to drink pints of GuinnessAP

In 1903, Irish law declared St. Patrick’s Day as a day of religious observance.

Up until the 1970s, pubs were closed on 17 March as per Irish law.

In 1995, the Irish government began a national campaign to use St. Patrick’s Day to drive tourism into the country and display Irish culture to the world.

Today, it is celebrated as a day of drinking, feasting, and parades where many dress up as leprechauns.

6. St Patrick’s Day parades began in America - not Ireland

St. Patrick's Day celebrations in Dublin, IrelandAP


Although Saint Patrick’s Day has been celebrated for over a millennia in Ireland, the famous parades which have now become the heartbeat of the holiday festivities originally began in America in the 18th century by Irish immigrants.

The first definite St Patrick’s Day parade took place in 1737, in Boston, Massachusetts, but the modern-day parades we see today have their roots in a 1762 parade celebration in New York.

For disadvantaged Irish immigrants in America - forced to escape Ireland because of famine and unable to find jobs in America upon their arrival - Saint Patrick's Day became a source of pride and celebration, a way to connect to their Irish roots.

7. Nobody knows exactly where St. Patrick is buried

Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity – known as Down CathedralDown Cathedral

Although several sites identify themselves as St. Patrick’s burial place, no one knows exactly where the saint is buried.

Popularly-accepted locations include Down Cathedral in the town of Downpatrick in Northern Ireland, which is also the burial place for Ireland’s other saints, Brigid and Columba, as well as Saul. However, some state that St. Patrick may be buried in Glastonbury Abbey in England.

 

Poland’s Nuclear Weapons Fascination


The Script of Anxiety


With the Ukraine War and the retreat of the United States from what has routinely been called Europe’s security architecture, states are galloping to whatever point of presumed sanctuary is on offer. The general presumption is that the galloping is done in the same step and rhythm. But Europe, for all the heavy layers of union driven diplomacy, retains its salty differences.

Poland is particularly striking in this regard, having always positioned itself as a defender against the continent’s enemies, perceived or otherwise. This messianic purpose was well on show with the exploits of King John III Sobieski in his triumphant defence of Vienna against the Ottoman Empire in 1683. The seemingly endless wars against Russia, including the massacres and repressions, have also left their wounding marks on a fragile national psyche.

These marks continue to script the approach of Warsaw’s anxiety to its traditional enemy, one that has become fixated with a nuclear option, in addition to a massive buildup of its armed forces and a defence budget that has reached 4.7% of its national income. While there is some disagreement among government officials on whether Poland should pursue its own arsenal, a general mood towards stationing the nuclear weapons of allies has taken hold. (As a matter of interest, a February 21 poll for Onet found that 52.9 percent of Poles favoured having nuclear weapons, with 27.9 percent opposed.)

This would mirror, albeit from the opposite side, the Cold War history of Poland, when its army was equipped with Soviet nuclear-capable 8K11 and 3R10 missiles. With sweet irony, those weapons were intended to be used against NATO member states.

The flirtatious offer of French President Emmanual Macron to potentially extend his country’s nuclear arsenal as an umbrella of reassurance to other European states did make an impression on Poland’s leadership. Prudence might have dictated a more reticent approach, but Prime Minister Donald Tusk would have none of that before the Polish parliament. In his words, “We must be aware that Poland must reach for the most modern capabilities also related to nuclear weapons and modern unconventional weapons.” According to the PM, “this is a race for security, not for war.”

The Polish President, Andrzej Duda, is also warm to the US option (he has been, over his time in office, profoundly pro-American), despite Tusk’s concerns about a “profound change in American geopolitics”. He was already ruminating over the idea in 2022 when he made the proposal to the Biden administration to host US nuclear weapons, one that was also repeated in June 2023 by then-Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. To have such weapons in Poland was a necessary “defensive tactic […] to Russia’s behaviour, relocating nuclear weapons to the NATO area,” he explained to the BBC. “Poland is ready to host this nuclear weapon.”

Duda then goes on to restate a familiar theme. Were US nuclear weapons stored on Polish soil, Washington would have little choice but to defend such territory against any threat. “Every kind of strategic infrastructure, American and NATO infrastructure, which we have on our soil is strengthening the inclination of the US and the North Atlantic Alliance to defend this territory.” To the Financial Times, Duda further reasoned that, as NATO’s borders had moved east in 1999, “so twenty-six years later there should also be a shift of the NATO infrastructure east.”

Much of this seems like theatrical, puffy nonsense, given Poland’s membership of the NATO alliance, which has, as its central point, Article 5. Whether it involves its protection by a fellow NATO ally using conventional or nuclear weapons, hosting such nuclear weapons is negated as a value. Poland would receive collective military aid in any case should it be attacked. But, as Jon Wolfsthal of the Federation of American Scientists reasons, an innate concern of being abandoned in the face of aggression continues to cause jitters. Tusk’s remarks were possibly “a signal of concern – maybe to motivate the United States, but clearly designed to play on the French and perhaps the British.”

The crippling paranoia of the current government in the face of any perceived Russian threat becomes even less justifiable given the presence of US troops on its soil. According to the government’s own information, a total of 10,000 troops are present on a rotational basis, with US Land Forces V Corps Forward Command based in Poznań. In February, Duda confirmed to reporters after meeting the US envoy to Ukraine Gen. Keith Kellogg that there were “no concerns that the US would reduce the level of its presence in our country, that the US would in any way withdraw from its responsibility or co-responsibility for the security of this part of Europe.”

Duda goes further, offering a sycophantic flourish. “I will say in my personal opinion, America has entered the game very strongly when it comes to ending the war in Ukraine. I know President Donald Trump, I know that he is an extremely decisive man and when he acts, he acts in a very determined and usually effective way.” With those remarks, we can only assume that the desire to have massively lethal weapons on one’s own soil that would risk obliterating life, limb and everything else is but a sporting parlour game of misplaced assumptions.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.