Anarchoblogs

As promised, you may now watch the Foreign Correspondent episode I blogged about a while ago from their website.  Just select the episode titled, ‘A Greek Tragedy.’

Recently, finally finished Richard Wright’s Native Son and all that came to mind as I laid the book back down is the notion of ’self-segregation’ put forward by some as a solution to social ills. The solution, funnily enough, comes in conjunction with a proposal for separatism; the idea that we may weaken any government by advocating certain groups secede to do their thing.   The reasoning follows, that there are a hell of a lot of nationalists and bigots out there of all colours and strains that should be appealed to, and allied with on the basis that they have numbers.  Numbers, in true utilitarian fashion, means strength and if these groups decide to secede then voila!  The state is gone.  Unfortunately, self segregation is usually part of the package and then we have the problem that after all this pan-secession takes place, we have a bunch of nationalists organisations building walls around their territories and imposing their own little rules upon people they have taken a dislike too.

Clearly, I prefer to revolution to secession.  Setting up a whole string of dictatorships in order to depose one major crime gang seems pointless.  A sort of going from bad, to bad-er.  But my reason for writing this is to put into words my thoughts on self-segregation as a sub-strategy of secessionism.  One that carries the promise of solving social ills.

Self-segregation, from what I can gather on the subject, is a subset process and principle where any minority, for any reason may disassociate themselves with the rest of society and form their own little group away from world.  In other words; wall themselves off and shoot anyone that tries to get over, under or around that wall (where shoot can be literal as well as metaphorical, in reference to processes such as shunning).

Either a minority is going to be forced to relocate to somewhere else and build their little homogeneous community from scratch or they’re going to segregate themselves into a particular corner of a city or town.  It doesn’t take much to realise that both these ideas are impractical as they are oppressive, as the first inevitably avenue usually winds up oppressing another group especially when performed in large numbers (Israel and Palestine, for example), or it ends up impoverishing those who have relocated to be with their ‘kind‘.

Then we come to the issue of just how these ’segregated’ communities are going to be achieved, with particular reference to property rights.  Sure, if you take the approach that one person can buy up as much land as possible and then sell it off to others, than self-segregation seems theoretically possible.  However aside from providing one of the fundamental justifications of government, where the Crown lays claim to all the land and sells parcels of it with caveats to individuals for private use, it also leads to the theoretical possibility that one man may own the world.  I wouldn’t really call that, ‘radical’ or even ‘Anarchist’ to be honest.  So where is the limit on property?  My suggestion would be a synthesis of Mutualist occupancy and use and Lockean property, where Occ/Use governs the extinction of a property claim and Lockean concept of mixing labour with something to make it property.  But then I am certainly not a great property theorist and I’m probably simplifying the problem, or conflating terms.

I find it hard to understand what the attraction is to self-segregation.  Aside from the practical issues associated with implementing the strategy, there’s also the major problem with segregation as a concept, something which I feel Native Son serves to explain, brilliantly;

…

“What do you mean? She accepted you as another human being.”

“Mr Max, we’re all split up.  What you say is kind ain’t kind at all.  I didn’t know nothing about that woman.  All I knew was that they kill us for women like her.  We live apart.  And then she comes and acts like that to me.”

…

“Mr Max, you know what some white men say we black men do?  They say we rape white women when we got the clap and they say we do that because we believe that if we rape white women then we’ll get rid of the clap.  That’s what some white men say.  They believe that. Jesus, Mr Max, when folks say things like that about you, you whipped before you born.  What’s the use?… They draw a line and say for you to stay on your side of the line.  They don’t care if there’s no bread over on your side.  They don’t care if you die. And then they say things like that about you and when you try come from behind your line they kill you.  They feel they ought to kill you then.  Everybody wants to kill you then.“

(emphasis added)

This conversation between Bigger and the Jewish lawyer Max takes place towards the end of the book before Max delivers an impassioned speech that communicates the moral to the reader.  The conservation draws out the horrific consequences of segregation, the psychology of oppression.  It highlights for the reader the great oppression that exists when a minority is segregated from the greater portion society; what happens when they are kept away, boxed off and the only demand of them is to work their hardest for the people that they are segregated from.

But surely, this is segregation and not self-segregation.  The key difference between the two, we are told, is that the second is voluntary and taken up by the minority as a consequence of oppression suffered at the hands of the majority.  We are told that any minority has the right to form their own communities and eject those expressly disallowed as trespassers.  Sound good?  Well the problem is that in order to form those communities, the minority must be sufficient in number to form a majority in that particular area.  The question then becomes that if they are a majority in the area, does that justify them in ‘ejecting’ the unwanted to enforce a homogeneous community?  Does might make right?

What if there are one or two individuals who are ‘unwanted’ but lived in the same area?  Is it justifiable that they should be removed from their homes?

Will the removalees receive compensation from the removelers for want amounts to robbery, assault, battery and who knows what other wrongs?

Then the next issue is how to maintain that segregation.  Individuals are individuals, with their own unique thoughts, desires, particular needs, expressions, habits and a variety of other different mannerisms that make a person interesting.  That make a person them.  What happens if a blonde haired man from a blonde-only community falls in love with a brunette?  Are we to enforce such homogeneity with ridicule, applying social pressure in order to make them ashamed of what they are doing?  To make their relationship in their minds seem criminal?  How about we expel them, so that the the blonde must forfeit his friends and family in order to be with the one that he loves?  How regulated, how controlled must such a society be for segregation to work?  How does that control be administered?  And most importantly, how does that effect an individual?

It all begs the question, why exactly would some propose self segregation? After all, most people want to experience the world, want to mingle with others and do something to add meaning and value to their lives, something which can only be achieved through interaction with people from other races, religions, cultures and sexualities.  An interaction with another individual on a meaningful level requires you to engage with people who are not like you and who most of the time do not resemble you in any way or form.  It is not just tolerance of difference, but acceptance of the fact that you are not the centre of the universe and that people are not going to always, look, behave and act the same.

Segregation has always since the beginning of time been a way for the cool kids to separate themselves off from the uncool.  For the pure to be separated out form the impure.  Groups ranging from your most conservative Christian, to your most fanatical Islamic or most pure white supremacist have always been in favour in separating the clean from the unclean.   Totalitarian groups have always used the coercive power of their institution to cleanse their towns and streets of some unwanted minority.  In my view, self-segregation appears to be an insidious, lazy way of achieving the same old goal of separating out favoured from condemned.

Self-segregation is a way of saying to an oppressed minority, ‘Okay, we respect you as a human.  We value your freedom of association, and we understand wrong has been done by you.  We recognise that there are others out there still perpetuating this wrong. But, hey! We have this great idea; why don’t you and your buddies disassociate yourself with them.  That’s right, you can have your own communities to do whatever you want, build them in whatever way you want — with orange and purple houses and moccasin powered cars.  We’ll even help you to do it!  Cross our hearts and hope to die.’

One just needs to browse Folk and Faith for confirmation:

Sometime in 1990 we began holding joint demonstrations–the Klan in their robes and the Africans in their dashikis. Needless to say it sparked quite a backlash. Many klansmen were angry at me for even considering such a thing. In my view it was a match inspired by God. Why should we have a problem with black men who are strict racial separatists and want to establish a homeland on the continent of Africa? I have even publicly endorsed the payment of reparations to blacks but only for the purpose of repatriation back to Africa.

“A Revolutionary Klansman.“

Enough said?  Not quite.

It’s a far more insidious approach than saying , ‘Get the fuck out of my community,’ which then creates the problem of people, who after taking 200 years to think about it, finally say, ‘Piss off, we live here!’  Under self-segregation, the minority will now conveniently oppress themselves! This can all be yours for five easy payments payable by cheque or credit card…

Self imposed segregation is a tool not for the salvation of an oppressed minority, but a tool for the oppression of a minority by a majority.  Instead of placing shackles upon the minority, they are handed a pair of fluffy pink cuffs and told life will be better after they slip them on.  After all, most people who are attracted to the idea of segregation have no real intention of segregating themselves off from the rest of the community, they want every person they don’t like out of their community.

Imagine your life is hell.  Bothered by bullets, disease, famine or some other horrible suffering brought upon you and your family. What is your first thought going to be?  Escape.

You decide to escape by boat.  Across the sea to somewhere different where you believe you will have a better chance at prosperity.  There is a great risk of death in making the journey, but this risk is outweighed your belief that you would have certainly died if you had remained where you are, or even have endured a worse fate of abject poverty.

Then, after months of travelling, hiding out, you come to the last leg of your journey, a dash across the ocean in a leaky boat to the other side where salvation waits.  You put up with the conditions, telling yourself that things will get better.  That they have to get better.

Days later, you’re within sight of your destination.  You can see the shore approaching in the far distance and inside you feel a sense of relief.

Your relief is short-lived.  An Australian navy ship is rushing to intercept you before you reach the shore.  Enter the first tentacle of the Australian government.  Costumed men acting with military efficiency bundle you and all the others up onto their navy ship.  You are not taken to the mainland, but an island where you are told you will be ‘processed.’

‘Processed’ is the key word.  You are not human; you have no soul.  Your name does not appear on any list or registrar.  You exist and you exist in this territory without permission.  People tell you this, that you’re illegal.  You didn’t ask for permission.

Migration is a perfectly natural, logical decision that we humans have been making for centuries whenever the circumstances in our homes get rough or become life-threatening.  We weigh up the risks, and often choose to leave for greener pastures.  So many of us know that the way our glorious governments treat immigrants is wrong.  It cannot be justifiable to demand someone ask permission to abandon their home in order to seek a new life and then to demand upon them such atrocities as a Bridging Visa.

But what is the most disturbing thing of all, is that when you are finally spat out of the bureaucratic machine enlisted to impart you with a soul, that you can be billed for trouble — as if you were staying in a hotel.

As of the 30 June 2008, there were 386 persons with active detention debts amounting to $7,705,576, according to Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) spokesperson Sandi Logan.

Any former detainee not granted a Permanent Protection Visa or Humanitarian Visa is billed for their time in detention, and any costs associated with their subsequent deportation.

According to Logan, “… the department has a standardised cost charged per day for detention across all mainland facilities. $125.40 a day is now the standardised rate charged across all mainland centres. The daily maintenance amount is never more than the actual cost of detention incurred by the Commonwealth.”

The overall detention costs include the cost of moving the detainee between different detention locations and the daily maintenance cost of detention, made up of expenses such as food and accommodation.

After fleeing Tanzania, Kasian Wililo arrived in Australia as an asylum seeker in 2002. He was held at the Maribyrnong detention centre in Melbourne from Jan 2003 and then Baxter (Port Augusta) detention centre from March 2004 to June 2005.

Letter 1 and Letter 2

Mr Kasian fled his country, fell in love and got billed.  And as with any bureaucratic function, you have to love the inevitable catch 22 that follows,

Mr Wililo is still waiting on approval for a permanent spousal visa. His May invoice stated that his outstanding debt would mean the criteria to be met in order to obtain a permanent visa would be “affected adversely.”

So that I am not accused of being too hasty, let me post what the officials have to say on the matter.

DIAC spokesperson Sandi Logan told Crikey: “The power to waive debts to the Commonwealth rests with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and his delegate (in the Department of Finance and Deregulation). Each case is unique and decided on its individual merits …”

“The department is mindful of the amount of the debt and has offered the option of a repayment plan, so the individual can service his debt,” says Logan.

I suppose we shoudl thank Ms Logan, but something doesn’t seem quite right.  Perhaps the answer can be found in the next paragraph:

Mrs Wililo confirmed to Crikey that the couple had been offered a payment plan —  ”$4000 up front and enter into a payment plan of the debt plus interest.”

It’s always interesting to watch as legislation intended to ‘fix’ this ‘problem’ will be blocked by the Liberal party.

Yesterday Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone delivered the Coalition’s case on why they opposed the bill to abolish detention debt. She labelled the image of former detainees struggling under the weight of thousands of dollars of debt as a “furphy”.

However, fixing this one catch 22 with legislation has the problem that it doesn’t solve the problem facing thousands of refugees and illegal immigrants everywhere; that it is not and can never be illegal.

• No Border network protests in Calais.
• NoBorder network.

Moments ago a report by Foreign Correspondent ended and the particular subject of the report was Greece.  Over all, while I think it’s mentioning of the word ‘Anarchist’ presented a chance for exposure to Australian audiences, the report, ironically enough, lack any explanation of what Anarchists stand for.  Any discussion of the Anarchists was a discussion from a position of the old commenting on what amounts to a caricature of Anarchists as ‘rebellious youths’, which is the only impression you can get when you interview cops, a university professor, a teenage boy, a politician — practically anyone but someone who ascribes to the Anarchist ideology.

While I must give credit in the attempts of the reporter to give  a description of what has happened in Greece since the shooting of Alexandros, somehow the report itself fell short and left me feeling angry.  There was much discussion of the damage the Anarchists have caused in the riots since the end of last year, the street fights with police and much footage of the riots, giving the impression that this is what the Anarchists have to offer.  There was no discussion of the ultra-nationalist efforts calling for racial purity and the ousting of immigrants, or the collaboration between ultra-nationalist groups and the Greek police.  There was no mention of the defence Anarchists have given to immigrants that have sufferred attacks by these groups.

I think, however, the biggest critique I can offer of the coverage was in their explanation of the terrorist groups, Revolutionary Struggle, to which the foreign minister of Greece offerred this comment;

“I believe this is the worst fascist ideology. It has nothing to do with any values, it has nothing to do with any political thinking, it’s pure violence, so we are facing it again after November 17.”

The irony of it all is there is no distinction made in the report between Revolutionary Struggle, the group conducting all the bombings and murders, and the Anarchists on the street working in solidarity with immigrants.  Revolutionary Struggle, from my information, operate on a militant Marxist-Leninst ideology which it has inherited from November 17.  Unfortunately for the minister who seems to have her ideologies mixed up, this group ain’t fascist and unfortunately for the reporter, they ain’t Anarchist.  Golden Dawn are the fascists along with the nationalistics in the Greek government and Revolutionary Struggle are Leninists.  Yet the way in which the story was reported allowed Revolutionary Sturggle to bleed together with the mention of the Anarchists, never mind they each have a distinct set of ideas — chiefly that the Anarchists are not about to potentially blow up an entire block.

My last and final complaint is that the cover-up following the shooting of Alexandros was non-existent, instead merely confined to almost a footnote in the tale.

Although I suppose I may be mistaken as there is potential that future reports will elaborate more on the situation.  Not to mention I doubt we can expect much more from the media — at least the term ’self-described’ Anarchist didn’t appear.

PS:  I’ll post the report at a later date so everyone and anyone can judge whether I’ve over-reacted or not.  It’s not yet up on the Foreign Correspondent website.

Having been so busy lately I haven’t had the opportunity to keep up to date with what’s happening in Australia and I feel terrible that it took the infamous Mike Gogulski to bring the following article to my attention — not to mention that this happened last year and I completely missed it.

Man ‘cooked’ to death in Australian prison van

SYDNEY (AFP) — The family of an Australian Aboriginal elder who died after being “cooked” in the back of a scorching hot prison van may sue after a coroner branded his treatment inhumane.

A coroner Friday described the treatment of the 46-year-old man as a “disgrace” and inhumane, saying he would ask prosecutors to consider criminal charges over his death from heatstroke in Western Australia in January 2008.

The elder, known only as Mr Ward as his first name was withheld for cultural reasons, was transported 360 kilometres (225 miles) to jail in temperatures of up to 50 degrees Celsius (122 F) in a van with faulty air conditioning.

Ward, who was arrested a day earlier for drink driving, spent four hours in the searing heat between the mining towns of Laverton and Kalgoorlie, suffering third-degree burns where his body touched the metal floor, the inquest heard.

Western Australia Coroner Alastair Hope found that Ward was effectively “cooked” to death and heavily criticised the state prisons department, the private security firm that operated the van and the two guards who escorted Ward.

“It is a disgrace that a prisoner in the 21st century, particularly a prisoner who has not been convicted of any crime, was transported for a long distance in high temperatures in this pod,” Hope said.

The hearing was told that when Ward eventually arrived unconscious at hospital in Kalgoorlie, his body was so hot that staff were unable to cool him down. After an ice bath, which failed to save him, he had a body temperature of 41.7 degrees Celsius as opposed to a normal temperature of 37 degrees Celsius.

Take a look at the photo, Mr Ward was no menace to society and was probably a well respected member of his community.  He died because he was required by the positive law to play his part as the accused in the theatrics of court proceedings for a crime that is not evil by reason but evil by the decree of government.  That is not to say that even if he had been guilty of the typical criminal pass times of pillage and plunder, he would have deserved his fate.  Of course we could take a purely superficial analyses and let blame fall against the guards for their negligence rather then question the very system that put Mr Ward into the back of a police van.

And I can’t help but wonder where was the outrage surrounding this death?  I’m sure that if this event had unfolded with the death of a white man, there would have been outrage from all corners of this continent.

As an Agorist, I found it curious when today I checked Strike-the-Root to find linked from it an article by a libertarian arguing that the central tenet of Agorism as to the power of counter economics is ridiculous.  Where the author agrees in principle, they disagree in application, which is fair enough except that disagreement is based on slightly confused logic.  So I thought I’d take a stab at answering it.

Despite my broad agreement with much of the underlying philosophy, I find this chain of events ludicrous – and I am not using the word lightly.  Let us consider one of the largest black markets in the world, the market for illegal drugs, which has been thriving for decades.  Has this resulted in market demand for protection agencies to replace the government?  Um, no.  It has resulted in exactly the opposite – a strengthening of the monopoly provider of security and law.  It has given us the militarization[sic] of policy, legalized[sic] theft via civil asset forfeiture, and a well-funded DEA.

To this I ask how, exactly, has all that increase in government power, oppression and regulation actually had any effect on the growth of the drug trade?  Has the state actually grown stronger from it’s regulations?

The answer lies in the critique itself where the author points out that the market for illegal drugs has been thriving for decades.  Specifically the part about thriving for decades.  All that regulation, all the militarisation of police forces to combat the thriving drug trade has failed, and each time a political candidate stands up to announce a new approach and more funding to eliminate the illegal drug market, it fails.  On the surface we see an emboldening of law enforcement but without result; still the illegal market in drugs grows.  What has occurred is that there is more waste to enforce increasingly powerless regulations.  Then there’s the net effect of housing, clothing, feeding all those growers, dealers and users who get arrested.  More waste.  And yet the black market continues to operate and grow.

Government has grown more oppressive, sure.  I agree.  But appears that it has not grown stronger as it is fundamentally unable to totally enforce its restrictions against the drug trade.

However the authors fundamental error lies in the scope of the analogy used to support the assertion.  That is the assumption that one area of the black market, in this case the illegal drugs market, will itself bring the state to collapse.  This is not the Agorist proposition.  The Agorist proposition is that the collective growth of every kind of black market that will bring revolution, each working to mutually benefit the other, building counter institutions and causing the government to waste itself into collapse.  Of course one sector of the counter economy isn’t going to bring an end to the state.

A more accurate example of counter economics at work is that of music piracy.  Analysing this social phenomenon, we see counter economics in action and its particular effect on a oppressive institution; the trundling music corporate behemoth.  After all, there are many areas and perspectives involved in music piracy; p2p filesharing, torrent filesharing, file transfers through email, file sharing through instant messengers, uploads to myspace, youtube, the abundances of CD burners and even lending a CD to your friend (not to mention the argument by some that playing music over the radio is piracy) are all regarded as illegal practices but each confers some positive benefit to the parties involved.  Case in point; they are counter economic.  Music piracy has since challenged the intellectual property monopoly and rattled the foundations of music corporations while thousands of entrepreneurs world wide have arisen to take advantage of this kind of viral distribution.  It is not simply one area of music piracy challenging the corporations, but every area.  Entrepreneurs have arisen to fill demand and innovate on existing infrastructure such as those responsible for that Tortuga-esque virtual pirate haven ThePirateBay, or the likes of Trent Reznor and Saul Williams, these individuals and all those taking advantage of the service are helping to effect change.  Funnily enough, even the most avid supporters of intellectual property may download music, or at least their children may download music, which turns out-spoken friends of the music corporation into enemies.

So keeping in mind a sense of scale, we need to look at the entirety of a counter economy in any given country in order to decide it’s effectiveness.  If we look at America, for example, we know the drug trade exists and we know it is perverse, because most of us know someone involved in it in some capacity and we hear about arrests in the media.  However we also need to consider how many individuals cheat on their taxes, how large the prostitution industry is, how many labourers, craftsman, or tradespeople work for cash — how many people are engaging in activities where they are not directly contributing to the coffers of the US government but still provide productive, even positive benefit.  We also need to consider how much waste there currently is.  War is costly and the American government fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proxy war in Somalia, assisting the Pakistani military against the Taliban and agitating for war against Iran.  There’s a few trillions of dollars.  Throw in all the money going towards the Pentagon, militarised police force, the CIA and FBI to protect against foreign and domestic terrorism while including the trillion dollar bail outs to industry, we can add many more trillions to the list.  Then consider the effect of all those unwise social programs created by representatives simply to garnish votes and we can add another trillion.  Factor in the inevitability of the printing press being looked to in order to ‘fix’ the white economy and the hole the American government has dug itself what seems to be a gaping hole while the counter economy continues to grow.

Tell me again why counter economics is ridiculous?

Imagine; revolution sans violent overthrow, sans leaders, sans reliance on political institutions.

So in answer to the authors closing statement,

Does anyone really think we can win such a war against the most powerful military in the world, on its home ground?

Absolutely.

As it turns out Rudd’s immense package didn’t just stimulate the economy of thousands of ordinary Australia’s, no, Rudd took it one step further and stimulated the dead.  It is reported that the corpses responded by lying their, and taking it like a corpse.

Some have theorised that the dead, excited by the intense stimulation will rise from their crypts, in a Hollywood zombie flick sort of way, to take over shopping centres and boutique stores in their quest to increase consumption for the good of Australia.  God bless ‘em.

The Australian government has admitted that cash hand-outs aimed at stimulating the economy have been sent to thousands of people who are dead.

The money was part of a multi-billion dollar package under which every tax-payer was entitled to a payment of up to A$900 ($700, £440).

About A$14m of the money went to dead people, ministers said, and A$25m to Australians living overseas.

Local media have dubbed the deceased recipients “the grateful dead”.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner said that the money would still help Australia’s economy.

…

It was Thursday.

Detective Cold Turkey knew this because he had read it in his horoscope yesterday.  Say what you like about astrologers but they know what the day is.  They even know what the day is going to be, which was more than Cold Turkey could usually say for himself.

He felt hung over.  His body felt like it had lost an arms race with a major superpower.  This was far from ideal but at least it went some way to explaining the terrible pain in his head.  Heck, it was even a partial explanation for the rope and the blindfold.

There was still, however, one mystery that had not, as yet, become clear.

Even as the thin mists of consciousness enveloped his feeble mind and started to kick-start reality, Cold Turkey knew it was going to be a bad day.  He knew this not because of his horoscope but because he was hanging upside down, some distance from the floor, in ever increasing agony.

Good days do not start like this.

Admittedly Cold Turkey had been having a ‘bad lifespan’ but this really took the biscuit.

This was almost as bad as the Unfortunate Misunderstanding with the Broccoli, except that there were fewer victims this time and he was immobilised with rope rather than used copies of Gardeners World. It was altogether too much for a Thursday Morning.  He couldn’t even remember where he left Wednesday evening, let alone anything important like: where is the aspirin? And, what didn’t I do last night?

Cold’s stomach started suggesting that it might be about to take matters into his own hands and begin examining the evidence from the previous evening.

Things clearly couldn’t go on like this, so Cold decided on a firm course of action.  He struggled lamely against his bindings and went “mmpmmh”.

It was at this point in the proceedings that Cold Turkey heard something interesting and enlightening.

Cold Turkey could list many noises he didn’t like to hear whilst hung over. “Ah, he is awake, let’s teach him a lesson he won’t forget in a hurry” wasn’t one of them, but he was none the happier to hear it anyway.

He left the familiar and unhappy torture of his hangover and entered the slightly less familiar world of searing pain.

And to think this had all started only last Friday.

Cold knew it had been a Friday because he had read it in his horoscope.

And so begins he tale of Cold Turkey and the Case of the Missing Crime by Samuel Morris, a comical, surreal and  seemingly absurdist tale set in none other than the English city of Stoke-on-Trent, and focusing on the misadventures of the former superhero turned private detective, Cold Turkey as he fights to save the city from the evil Captain Rightwing.

The novel itself is something akin to what you would expect of a comic book’s debauched liaison with a DvD containing a season of the Mighty Boosh; a series of non sequiters, private in-jokes and witty observations folded neatly around a bizarre story-line of lycra wearing super-heroes, some bad, some good, most useless.

As you probably have guessed, the novel itself is described by its author as ‘anarchistic’ who, as legend has it, is himself an Anarchist of some description.  Although the novel is far from a didactic piece, but there are moments of clarity where the reader is slapped in the face with a mildly camouflaged anti-state moral, often amidst moments of chaos or calamity to illustrate the point.

Whether it’s a description of the banking system as one that is easier to break into the cavernous halls of the vault than it is to break out, or the mere image of a ‘regiment of freelance superheros’ atop a police van (with the police logo ‘Lice’ formerly written upon the side) converted into a boat for the purpose of beginning the battle against against the evil-doers to cries of “Up the revolution!” and “Bacon sarnies for the people!” –there are many reason to read Cold Turkey.

Samuel Morris, truly has his own unique style.  It’s his witty turn of phrase that makes the book a great read, and if you have a quirky, off-beat sense of humour, Cold Turkey will certainly appeal.

Now we come to the shameless plug, where I urge you to buy the novel and support Samuel is his David-and-Goliath struggle against some equally shameless publishing giants who have refused to publish the book.

So, Samuel has decided to publish independently.

Cold Turkey may be purchased through Amazon, directly through the publisher Melrose Books, or through any small bookshop with the ISBN;

ISBN-10: 1906561303
ISBN-13: 978-1906561307

Help keep Samuel Morris in a healthy supply of biscuits so that he may continue writing.