Social Items

TPQ

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Forty Six

 

Pastords @ 40

 

A Morning Thought @ 3121

Donal O'Driscoll ✍ Now that the dust has settled on the fuel protests, we can look at it with perhaps more semblance of calm and reason than was possible during the week. 

However, the question of whether or not I supported the protests, as if it were a binary choice, remains problematic for me to answer without doing a deep dive into the nuances. So I will attempt to do that now.

One of the easier questions to answer is if I support the original stated aims of tackling fuel costs and the cost of living Crisis that it has created. I don't drive so petrol and diesel doesn't affect me, but I did recently have to top up our oil, paying almost double what I normally pay. Even if I hadn't, supporting people taking a stand on such fundamental issues is a no brainer.

Indeed, after initial confusion about the scale of this and the effects on the public, disruption became less of a concern. Effective mass protests do cause disruption and after the first day I think planning around things became easier.

Here is where things become murkier. The issue of organisation and leadership. It was clear from day one that this protest was a bit 'higgledy piggledy' to say the least. The lack of direct involvement from the IRHA and farmers' organisations meant it was hard to see where the buck stopped. The idea of protests being organised through WhatsApp and social media does leave me feeling a bit uneasy.

Then more and more information emerged about the so called leaders of this. Christopher Duffy, was already known to me through social media as an appalling bigot who used his social media to spread lies and hatred against Muslims and migrants. A horrible excuse of a human being that I couldn't even begin to get on board with, even before I heard of his deplorable post saying he didn't care if the IDF raped Greta Thunberg. There is so much shit on Geoghegan, it's a case of take your pick, but again, a notorious spreader of anti-immigrant propaganda. 

John Dallon's drink driving offences again make him an unsuitable spokesperson for Hauliers, but as someone with alcohol issues myself, I don't know enough about the man to know if maybe there were addiction issues he'd since overcome. He's certainly the least objectionable of the three, but that is a low bar.

Again, leadership issues don't mean you can't support the broad movement, but it was clear there was very little attempt to disassociate from the loathsome Duffy in particular. In fact many people insist still that this swamp dweller is some sort of hero. Indeed, even many of the so called 'ordinary people' interviewed, kept bringing up stuff like 'looking after our own'. I don't think I need to explain what this is usually code for. In fairness, I don't think the disgusting attacks on the Muslim Sisters of Eire can be blamed directly on the protests. The plastic patriots may well have attacked them anyway, the protests merely gave them more reason to be in town.

Now we come to the really disappointing thing for me as a socialist, the whitewashing by some on the left of the very real issues with the leaders of this. I don't have a problem with individual parties like SF or PBP supporting the protests, as I say, I get the central issues and they weren't the main gaslighters. But some of the 'left wing' influencers online who were so quick to paint this as some sort of 'glorious revolution' that they instantly shot down any mention of the involvement of people like Duffy, left a sour taste in my mouth.

So when you ask me 'did you support the protesters? ', the honest answer is, it depends. I was certainly sympathetic to the aims and acknowledge most protesters were voicing genuine grievances. Nonetheless, there was a dodgy element, especially at leadership level, which made it very hard for me as a socialist, to get fully behind them.

⏩Donal O'Driscoll is political activist from West Cork.

It Depends

The Journal 📰 Independent Senator Eileen Flynn has almost become accustomed to being the target of online abuse in Ireland, and abroad, but she said that comments about her made on X in the past week have been the worst yet.

“I’ve never experienced hate like it,” she told The Journal, after a video of remarks she made in the Seanad about the recent fuel protests went viral in certain circles online on Wednesday.

In the Seanad contribution, Flynn had said she would not attend any protests where the Irish flag was being flown because it has become a symbol exploited by members of the far right, who sought to hijack the fuel protests last week.

She told The Journal the Irish far right and other online agitators “punch down” on minority communities.

“They don’t stand for the Ireland we fought for 100 years ago and we’re still fighting for today,” Flynn said.

“I will not stand by when our flag is being used to promote hatred, division and anti-migrant remarks. For me, the flag means peace, unity and justice and equality.”

Flynn made history when she became the first woman from the Traveller community to sit in the upper house.

Continue @ The Journal.

Senator Eileen Flynn Says She Has Faced Worst Online Abuse And Hate Yet In Past Week

The Fenian Way ðŸ”– In Irish history the figure of Rory O’Connor is primarily focussed on two aspects of his life, his execution ordered by the man whom O’Connor stood as best man at his wedding and his quote concerning military dictatorship in the initial chaos of the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.


But in this work Gerard Shannon delves deeply into a man who was a tireless background worker for the revolutionary movement in the post 1916 years. And given his furtive nature, correspondence by him in the most frenetic events are scarce and credit must go to Shannon for unearthing documents that allow us form a credible biography of a most dedicated republican.

Like a lot of politically aware individuals pre-1916 O’Connor leaned towards the Home Rule Movement as essentially the only Irish political show in town. Pearse had shared Home Rule platforms as recently as 1915 before departing on a more radical path.

O’Connor’s comfortable upbringing brought him into contact with individuals of a more intellectual bent, most notably Joseph Plunkett and his family whom he worked most closely with. And whilst more radical thinking was expressed to him it wasn’t enough to deter him from the emigrant ship and an engineering career in Canada.

In extensive correspondence two matters become clear, he wasn’t that happy abroad and he kept broadly abreast of political events back in Ireland. On his return during World War I he contemplated joining the British Army seeing merit in Redmond’s argument that a loyal Ireland would be duly rewarded by receiving its own parliament. But, as ever, British actions scuppered this trajectory which forced individuals like O’Connor to fundamentally re-think their positions.

And in this process of change the book gives a valuable and insightful look on the fluidity of Irish politics at the time which was very far removed from a simplistic dichotomy of either Home Rule or Irish Republic, even in the aftermath of the 1916 Executions.

His role in the 1916 Rising was minimal, although wounded possibly by friendly fire, but it did see the early development of his engineering skills being applied to the military struggle, a discipline reflecting a precise and calculating mind.

As the national mood changed dramatically after the 1916 Executions O’Connor immersed himself in re-organising the national struggle but soon found quite a fractious republican base. The important Roscommon by-election in 1917, which saw Count Plunkett chosen as an Independent, though perceived as Sinn Féin's first election victory, divisions arose as to whether the victory was an endorsement of an abstentionist position or that of Arthur Griffith’s Dual Monarchy approach.

O’Connor had personal loyalty to Plunkett, who had his own political ambitions, and the book outlines O’Connor’s skilful navigation of the personal over the political which sets him firmly on the republican path. The By-election was a dry-run for the 1918 General Election, arguably the most significant election in Irish history, and set O’Connor on the road to his ultimate fate.

At the outset of the War of Independence, following the first meeting of Dáil Eireann and the Solohedbeg Ambush - just as O’Connor was finding his feet for the role of his Engineering Department in the escalating conflict - the author delves into the developing relationships O’Connor was having with key players at leadership level. Opinions of O’Connor and from O’Connor are mixed but are an essential aid in getting into his mindset in the midst of a revolutionary struggle.

Key players such as Tom Barry, Cathal Brugha, Michael Collins, Ernie O’Malley and, of course, Kevin O’Higgins are all cited with a particular detail reserved for his relationship with O’Higgins. In tandem with these insights are a schedule of fascinating plans for prison escapes, some successful, some not and some abandoned, with O’Connor at the helm, demonstrating his penchant for detailed planning in line with his engineering discipline. This early period in the War of Independence establishes O’Connor as a formidable individual with undoubted leadership qualities.

Like many others O’Connor was interned, his brief sojourn being the Curragh Camp in Kildare, wherein ten days later he and a colleague promptly escaped. Although brief his internment is competently covered in that his attention to detail concerning escape proposals reinforces not only his competency but his forming belief that victory could be had. And like many other notable events in O’Connor’s affairs during this period the author references private commenting correspondence from O’Higgins, almost like a subplot, noting his genuine fondness for the former. The net effect of this draws the reader into the text as the inevitable tragic climax is reached.

Shortly after his escape the IRA launched its controversial attack on the Customs House resulting in heavy losses for the IRA in an operation which was deliberately designed as a ‘spectacular’ knowing a truce was in the offing. No evidence is offered for O’Connor’s input into the operation which is unfortunate as it may have given his frame of mind regarding a truce. However the author does reference an intriguing report that O’Connor sent to Richard Mulcahy, IRA Chief of Staff, listing the successful operations carried out by the IRA as a clear indicator that not only could such operations be continued but also improved upon. This is most telling as the IRA’s capabilities formed a central plank of the pro-Treaty side.

O’Connor expressed doubts about the truce but like others of his mindset availed of the respite to reorganise and to re-arm the IRA. To its great credit the book details O’Connor’s efforts and in particular the IRA organisation in England whose healthy operation rate generally gets lost in the historical shadow of operations like Kilmichael and Crossbarry.

It was also at this juncture that O’Connor acted as best man (‘bestest best man’ as described by O’Higgins himself) in the marriage of Kevin O’Higgins, an almost grotesque symbol of personal unity in a time of mounting political division. As reports of the negotiations made their way into the public realm attitudes amongst IRA members began to harden, the terms of the subsequent truce verifying their worst fears. In O’Connor’s case his initial reaction to the truce was to seek permission from Cathal Brugha, Minister for Defence, to arrest the plenipotentiaries on their arrival back in Ireland.

O’Connor, surprisingly, did not attend the treaty debates, the author finds a quote of him having dropped in for ‘ten minutes’ but that in itself is informative. Just like Home Rule and the Easter Rising the political situation was not a comfortable binary one. By and large what ultimately decided the issue for a lot of republicans was personal loyalties, (a scenario which would repeat itself some seventy years later) and, intriguingly, O’Connor inspired both pro and anti-Treaty opinion. Some viewed the Treaty as a practical step, strategically useful, others as an anathema to republican doctrine and others still saw it as the new law of the land and thus a completely new political dispensation.

Insights into anti-Treaty IRA thinking are well presented and essentially portray a dis-unified picture with the sombre shadow of Civil War looming in an increasingly volatile situation. As O’Connor is quoted; ‘if there is a Civil War we will not be the one’s to start it’. But, as ever in such situations, such wars start themselves.

As the new Free State Army was formed it quickly began to fill the vacuum left by the departing British Garrison which became a dangerous flashpoint between the two sides most notably in Limerick. What emerges from this turmoil is a clear indication that the pro-Treaty side had a much more focussed sense of itself both in terms of intent and direction whilst the anti-Treaty IRA were relying on constitutional technicalities and formalities to retain some semblance of cohesion.

Even as de Valera assumed the public persona of anti-Treaty republicans, his own opposition to the Treaty centred on his idea of External Association, as opposed to loyalty to the Republic, which didn’t bode well for a unified approach. What also evolved, and the book credibly outlines it, were efforts by O’Connor and other notable IRA leaders to release themselves from the authority of the Dáil and by default from accountability to the Irish people. War and peace are powerful political motivators which Lloyd George was extremely aware of. This increasing detachment from any semblance of democratic accountability prompted his infamous ‘military dictatorship’ exchange with journalists, a more complete exchange is refreshingly presented and the author, with some justification, views it in terms of O’Connor’s lack of any experience with the media particularly given the circumstances involved. Nevertheless it formed an indelible part of O’Connor’s legacy.

The IRA Convention held in the first half of 1922 is well covered and the detailed accounts of motions and debates further underscores the anti-Treaty IRA’s drift into technical and constitutional refuge with political opposition to the Treaty centred around broad statements of support for the Republic as a functioning reality but only in the minds of those opposing the Treaty. However, as earnest and principled republicans who actually fought the war, their path was set and ultimately the Four Courts beckoned.

The decision to occupy the Four Courts, from O’Connor’s perspective, seems to have been more out of organisational necessity as opposed to a deliberate political statement wherein the book gives the impression that O’Connor failed to realise the explosive implications that the move would have. The decision provoked a broadly negative reaction from both the national and international media, the familiar ‘anti peace and no alternative’ refrain becoming the dominant narrative.

However, despite O’Connor’s formulaic view on the new garrison for others in the building it meant something very different: “It became …..the pivotal point from which radiated the passion and flame of the IRA….”. O’Connor was now the public face of the Anti-Treaty forces.

A fascinating chapter explores the machinations of a proposed united front of pro and anti-Treaty forces regarding a joint northern offensive as the sectarian tensions in the Six Counties ramped up. The brainchild of Michael Collins and Liam Lynch, the offensive ultimately foundered on poor communications but also on the lack of clarity in its actual objectives. But the main point was that even though clear lines of demarcation were being created there was still a lingering hope that both sides could reach a workable solution with a Free State being subordinate to IRA authority. Both Collins and de Valera knew this was unworkable, but for very different reasons. These efforts at reaching a unified position are excellently researched and presented and one can sense the cauldron type atmosphere within which these discussions were held.

The inevitable consequences of British policy in Ireland reached their zenith when pro-Treaty/National Army forces attacked the Four Courts Garrison. The book is highly competent in relating how the volunteers and officers dealt with this beginning with a self realised admonishment of the garrison failing to react knowing that the National Army was surrounding the complex. In essence the Four Courts saga was a microcosm of what was happening in the rest of the country with the ever increasing National Army encircling an ever retreating IRA. In essence the surrender of the Four Courts was the de facto surrender of republican forces.

The Free State was now leaning to a more vicious response to the IRA with the introduction of military courts to ostensibly sanitise an executions policy. In an intriguing episode a clandestine meeting between Richard Mulcahy and de Valera is referenced where Mulcahy is quoted as saying de Valera told him. ‘I would tend to be led by reason, but as long as there are men of faith like Rory O’Connor taking the stand he is taking, I am a humble soldier following after him’. This convinced Mulcahy of the need for executions but it also strongly suggests that the main impediment to de Valera assuming the political leadership of anti-Treaty forces were men like O’Connor. Was de Valera asking Mulcahy to remove this impediment?

As with any civil war bitterness surpasses reason. The tipping point for O’Connor was the IRA’s assassination of Séan Hales TD in Dublin as a reprisal for the Free State’s Government ratification of the military courts policy. Tit for tat! Mulcahy sought Cabinet approval for the execution of Dick Barrett, Liam Mellowes, Joe McKelvey and Rory O’Connor. In that process the book offers a plausible if slightly contrived version of how Kevin O’Higgins responded as a member of that Cabinet. Citing credible sources O’Higgins was said to be hesitant, perhaps a consequence of legal training and thinking, but after a minute of this apparent hesitancy he is quoted as tersely saying ‘Take them out and shoot them’. Contrary to popular belief no death warrant was ever physically signed.

Why these four were chosen is open to debate and the author engages in healthy speculation as to the various theories why. This is important because too often in Irish republican history rumour and half truths can fester into facts however any reader can reach their own conclusions with the material aptly provided in the text.

O’Connor’s reaction to the news of his impending execution and his subsequent preparations for same are presented honestly referencing his final letters to family and his own personal belief system. There are elements of any book that need to be fully understood in the broader context of the text itself and not to be ‘judged’ by any review and this particular passage is one. On the 8th of December 1922 IRA Volunteers Rory O’Connor, Dick Barrett, Joe McKelvey and Liam Mellowes were executed by a Free State firing squad in Mountjoy Prison. The Irish Independent approved!

Legacy is an ever moving state of affairs. The emergence of what has become known as ‘civil war politics’, with the electoral interloping of governance between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, have condemned the drafting of such legacies to the short sighted vagaries of electoral politics. Regardless of anyone’s political stance such an approach does a grave disservice to both people and the events they shaped. Books such as this are essential in countering these narrow narratives but also serve as a crucial aide in how to address subsequent treaties in the yet unresolved Anglo-Irish conflict and those who took different positions on them.

Gerard Shannon, 2026, Rory O'Connor: To Defend the Republic. Merrion Press: ISBN-13: 978-1785375842

⏩ The Fenian Way was a full time activist during the IRA's war against the British.

Rory O’Connor 🕮 To Defend The Republic

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Forty Five

 

A Morning Thought @ 3120

Carrie Twomey ✍ writes of the stereotypical Irish content being farmed by MAGA accounts on social media to Irish American audiences

My family, who do not support Trump or MAGA, often send videos me they come across related to Ireland, videos fed to them by the Facebook algorithm alongside Irish dancing and travel videos. 

The last 6 Facebook videos I was sent from family in the United States (all about the fuel protest) were from far right MAGA influencer accounts spreading propaganda. 

The far right in Ireland is being supported by MAGA, Steve Bannon, and the US State Department under Trump (Sarah Rogers). 

They want to create an Irish Trump - they were hoping they could get Conor McGregor elected and that's why he was at the White House St Patrick's Day in 2025. 

They want to manipulate Irish Americans with propaganda presenting Ireland and stereotypical Irishness as being MAGA and pro Trump, so they push these false narratives on social media like these posts and videos. 

There's millions of Irish American voters they are targeting with these fake accounts pushing this. 

They are also working to destabilise the government here ahead of Ireland holding the EU Presidency. 

Ireland has a lot of tech companies' EU headquarters here and is in charge of the data regulators. 

The US wants to stop the EU from regulating tech companies. 

It also wants to build more data centres and exploit Ireland's energy resources. It's all about money. 

We had a week of a handful of farmers and truck drivers do "go slow" protests on major highways (just like the MAGA protest in Canada) and then they started blocking the ports which was becoming a national emergency. Gas stations ran out of fuel and stores were starting to empty. 

At first people supported it because they thought the protests were about everyone's cost of living going up. 

It quickly became apparent that this was a far right stunt for propaganda purposes and that the farmers and truck drivers involved were only interested in protecting themselves. 

First, they were only focused on the Irish government. They called for our Taoiseach to be killed and drove gallows through Dublin. They said nothing about the war in Iran, or Trump, despite that being the reason fuel prices are going up. 

Secondly, they stopped the protest as soon as the government deployed the police and agreed to a tax reduction for farmers and haulage. 

In a couple weeks that reduction will be gone because the price of fuel will be rising further (Europe has less than 6 weeks reserves left). So it was a pointless protest for the Irish people as a whole. It gained nothing while creating fear and division ahead of a crisis. 


But on Thursday, Trump's ambassador to the EU, Andrew Pudzer, met with Irish officials in Dublin to urge the government to keep using and investing in fossil fuels (which the protesters had advocated), and to keep fuel prices down. 

Had the protests not just taken place (and almost bring down the government), the ambassador's reception would have been very different. 

Ireland would have been more confident heading in a direction similar to Spain's, who are no longer majority dependent on fossil fuels, now relying on renewable sources of energy. 

The protest scared officials and helped create a receptive atmosphere for the ambassador instead. 

When you're looking at Facebook and Irish content, be very critical. The majority of it is either AI slop or far right propaganda designed to trick you. 

Especially if it's Irish related, it is usually wrong and posted by really bad (and racist) accounts. They used to be the Qanon, anti-vaccine Covid denier type accounts. 

Now they are using Ireland, its culture, and history, to further spread their disinformation and harm. The manipulation is to make Irish Americans feel proud they are carrying on 'Irish tradition' being MAGA.

⏩Carrie Twomey hates Illinois Nazis (just like the Blues Brothers)

Paddywhackery Propaganda

Irish Times 📰 Written by Fintan O'Toole.

Big wheels are being driven over democratic norms

Welcome to the dictatorship of the breakfast roll-atariat! All power to the HGV Soviets!

James Geoghegan, one of the leaders of the, declared on RTÉ’s Liveline the uprising “a revolution” that is “going to change Ireland forever”. Fair enough: this is arguably the most serious insurrection the State has experienced in a century.

But the rest of us are at least entitled to a little more information. A revolution against what? And what kind of permanent transformation does this truck-ulent vanguard intend to create in our lives?

There’s a point in any social upheaval when it shifts from being against the government to being against the state. The first is entirely healthy – a vigorous and disputatious citizenship is essential to a democracy. The second – and we’ve been here before through the long history of militant Irish republicanism – attacks the legitimacy of democracy itself.

It posits the existence of a superior group that is purer and more authentic than the rest of the citizenry and that therefore has the right to enforce its will. As Geoghegan crowed to The Irish Times, “It’s in our hands, we call the shots. Whatever we decide to do is what everyone else will do.”

Continue @ Irish Times.  

Ireland’s Far-Right Movement Will Emerge From The ‘Breakfast Roll-Atariat’

Christopher Owens ðŸ”– “...while this may technically be the best time to be a woman in the West, that’s like saying it is the best time in history to have a vital limb amputated.’'


Sigh.

It’s this doomer worldview that makes it impossible to have conversations with certain groups of people.

Yet, to an extent, I get it.

Not just because 2026 has been such a whirlwind so far that it’s impossible to know what’s coming up, but also because it’s easy to imagine that you have no control over your life and thus not take any risks. In other words, being a victim is an utterly seductive proposition for many, on both the left and right.

As Frank Furedi recently argued:

For the political right, the victim offered a new point of contact with what it regarded as an alienated silent majority. Amid moral uncertainty—when traditional conservative values seemed threatened by the so-called permissive society—the victim became a potential focus for renewing civic solidarity...a moral stance against crime and public empathy for victims would strengthen ties to family and community... But conservatives were not alone in turning towards victimhood...In the 1960s and 1970s, liberal and radical politics underwent a significant transformation: many groups once regarded as agents of change were increasingly cast as victims of the system. The women’s movement followed a similar trajectory. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, feminists often resisted representing women as victims. By the late 1970s, that position had shifted. Campaigns began to foreground the woman victim—battered, violated, raped. Suffering, too, became a political resource. Victimology was less challenged than politicised. Political forces began to contest which experiences entitled people to the status of victim, turning victim identity into a moral and political prize.

Hence why it’s now up for debate about whether protesting farmers are dupes for the far-right or whether government officials attacking the media coverage is a good thing.

The main problem with being a perpetual victim is that you become blind to the progress already made and end up living an unfulfilled life where everyone else is to blame except for yourself. You never unearth your potential to make the world a better place, nor do you see your fellow citizens as equals.

So now would be the perfect time to remind us how far women’s freedom has come.

Enter Zoe Strimpel.

Writing this book, her openly stated aims are to demonstrate that:

careerism is Good for women. Even mothers. And their children.

Women do Not (generally) belong behind the sink with a brood.

a lot of evolutionary psychology is Bunk. Regressive, sexist, dumb.
‘the female of the species’ is quite often the more promiscuous, and more deadly.
Attacking us should be dangerous.

Quite lofty aims and while the book isn’t a complete success, there is an awful lot to ponder within its pages.

One section in particular highlighted how conservatives and liberals both dislike the concept of women defending themselves from physical attacks:

..I have often thought about how good it would be for all girls and women...to go through mandatory martial arts training tailored specifically to attacks from men...As I went around making these points, I garnered incredulous disapproval and dismissive snorts. That’s because, in the mode of passive complaint favoured by progressive women, it is important never to do something that is not ‘your job’...underlying the...argument seems to lurk the assumption that it is somehow unnatural to ask women to respond violently to violence...

When considered further, the implications are disturbing.

Her unabashed view of capitalism as saviour will not go down particularly well in certain quarters but the ultimate message of how it has never been a better time to be a woman in the Western world is certainly a necessary antidote to the endless amounts of doomsayers in today's society.

On one hand, Good Slut is an attempt to demonstrate that women in 2026 need to stop thinking of themselves as perpetual victims and take chances. On the other hand, there are problems.

When trying to defend the right to abortion, she uses the “it’s just a collection of cells” argument which, though technically true, is not a persuasive argument for many. In fact, some would consider it, at best, infantilising and, at worst, callous. Abortion is something virtually every woman goes into with an understanding of what will happen and a deep awareness of the consequences. Most understand that it’s a human life so, if an abortion is requested, it’s better not to infantilise but confront the matter head on. Through this, we not only defend the right for a woman to choose but we also can offer help and understanding afterwards through frank and honest conversations.

Another eye roller is when she claims that Hillary and Kamala weren’t elected due to a lingering hostility among some in America about a woman being president. This viewpoint is utterly laughable considering Kamala dropped out of the 2019 primaries after being clocked by Tulsi Gabbard, only to be rescued by Biden when he needed a way to show how forward thinking he was, while Camille Paglia hit the nail on the head when she said that:

Hillary has benefited enormously from being a woman. People don't lay a glove on her. If she were not a woman...people would go after her—all of her opponents would have gone after her, you know, far, far more severely—for her corruption, her dishonesty, you know, for her...the woman has never succeeded at any job. She's created chaos after chaos, including now all of North Africa spilling its refugees into Europe is due to Hillary, you know, taking out Gaddafi and not thinking about what would happen afterward...

Finally, Strimpel’s argument that Bonnie Blue and Lily Phillips represent what a truly robust liberal society looks like may very well be true on the face of it, and Strimpel is correct that conservatives and liberals are uncomfortable with the notion that both consented to do what they did (hence why we’ve seen articles attacking the notion of consent), the situation does ask awkward questions about the pornification of society and how that is separate from casual sex.

Regardless, there is still a fair bit to chew on in here. Maybe it will inspire a few to remove the ‘victim’ mantle from their mindset before going on to change the world for the better. And if it does, then the book has done its job.

Zoe Strimpel, 2026, Good Slut: How Money, Sex and Power Set Women Free. Constable. ISBN: 978-1408720974
 
⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Good Slut

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Forty Four

 

A Morning Thought @ 3119

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)