What do you think?
Rate this book
Depends What You Mean By Extremist
Expecting skinheads, John Safran rocked up to a far-right rally in Melbourne. What he found led him into the mad world of misfits who helped propel the second coming of Pauline Hanson and foreshadowed the era of Trump.
No one turns up where they’re not wanted quite like John Safran. In this hilarious and disorienting adventure he gets among our diverse community of white nationalists, ISIS supporters, anarchists and more, digging away at the contradictions that many would prefer be left unexamined. Who is this black puppet-master among the white nationalists? And this Muslim fundamentalist who geeks out on Monty Python? Is there a secret radicalisation network operating in John’s own Jewish suburb? And ultimately – is hanging with all these radicals washing off on John himself?
Populated by an extraordinary cast of ‘ordinary’ Australians, Depends What You Mean by Extremist is a startling, confronting portrait of contemporary Australia. We all think we know what’s going on in our own country, but this larger-than-life, timely, and alarmingly insightful true story will make you think again . . .
Drinking shots with nationalists and gobbling falafel with radicals, John Safran was there the year the extreme became the mainstream.
No one turns up where they’re not wanted quite like John Safran. In this hilarious and disorienting adventure he gets among our diverse community of white nationalists, ISIS supporters, anarchists and more, digging away at the contradictions that many would prefer be left unexamined. Who is this black puppet-master among the white nationalists? And this Muslim fundamentalist who geeks out on Monty Python? Is there a secret radicalisation network operating in John’s own Jewish suburb? And ultimately – is hanging with all these radicals washing off on John himself?
Populated by an extraordinary cast of ‘ordinary’ Australians, Depends What You Mean by Extremist is a startling, confronting portrait of contemporary Australia. We all think we know what’s going on in our own country, but this larger-than-life, timely, and alarmingly insightful true story will make you think again . . .
Drinking shots with nationalists and gobbling falafel with radicals, John Safran was there the year the extreme became the mainstream.
304 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2017
69 people are currently reading
1064 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews
January 1, 2020
Safran is a sort of antipodean Louis Theroux and Jon Ronson rolled into one but more upfront, that's the Australian in him. He shares their ability to actually get on with extremists whilst at the same time not pandering to them unlike the majority white people and their media who now call a bloody shovel a nice spade for doing a little gardening with.
That is, we, our liberal-minded modern selves mustn't call out any but our own brothers and sisters for racist, religious or sexist speech and attitudes as respect of another religious or racial group is the way we go now. It's part of their religion, part of their tradition we say, and we can't interfere with that no matter evil we know it really is. Intolerance is the greatest sin there is these days, and we can't be seen to be committing that. That's where Safran scores, he ignores political correctness and tells it how it is.
Safran is very sarcastic, totally lacking in subtlety but making up for it by being very witty and able to lighten his writing with laugh-out-loud jokes and hilarious situations where he is 'undercover'. He rarely lies about being Jewish but sometimes he has to, and sometimes he takes on other persona in order to join groups and see how they operate and what they really think and are planning.
He's not cruel and he tries to understand and be sympathetic (at least at the time he is with them) to each group of extremists. But none of them think they are extremists, they all think they are rational people who know the truth, hence the title, 'Depends what you mean by extremist.'
That is, we, our liberal-minded modern selves mustn't call out any but our own brothers and sisters for racist, religious or sexist speech and attitudes as respect of another religious or racial group is the way we go now. It's part of their religion, part of their tradition we say, and we can't interfere with that no matter evil we know it really is. Intolerance is the greatest sin there is these days, and we can't be seen to be committing that. That's where Safran scores, he ignores political correctness and tells it how it is.
Safran is very sarcastic, totally lacking in subtlety but making up for it by being very witty and able to lighten his writing with laugh-out-loud jokes and hilarious situations where he is 'undercover'. He rarely lies about being Jewish but sometimes he has to, and sometimes he takes on other persona in order to join groups and see how they operate and what they really think and are planning.
He's not cruel and he tries to understand and be sympathetic (at least at the time he is with them) to each group of extremists. But none of them think they are extremists, they all think they are rational people who know the truth, hence the title, 'Depends what you mean by extremist.'
July 3, 2017
I actually listened to this as an audiobook, which was a classic with Safran narrating.
Safran's time spent going into the depths of Australia's far left and far right seems full of contradictions and tangles. What I particularly found interesting:
-The far right are actually quiet multicultural. One is a Hanson supporter, yet has a wife who came over as a refugee...we like refugees, but only if 'they are hot Eurasians'.
-'This is the most multicultural anti-multicultural rally I have ever been to!'
The far right have quiet a mixed crowd of race and culture, such as the leader of 'Rise up Australia' Danny Nalliah being a Sri Lankan born Christian, or many Aboriginal protesters against Islam immigration. Makes for awkward scenes at a protest when white skinned far left protesters start calling brown skin protesters racist bigots. Much easier to stereotype them all as drunk white skinned bogans (which however do make up the majority it seems, or violent bikie groups which don't help the family friendly image they want to promote). As for Nalliah, it seems he comes from a part of Sri Lanka where there is infighting between Christians and Muslims, so as a extremist Christian he naturally hates them. 'A part of assimilating is leaving behind ethic grievances. Maybe Nalliah is the one who isn't assimilating' (hahaha).
-On bath far right and left rallies, leaders of both sides seem to have agendas that go way beyond your typical cultural protectionism and fighting racism. The far left seemed to want to make advances to turn Australia into a Socialist state, while the far right have these ultra racist (actual racism, not just culturism) about white supremacy not breeding with inferior races etc. A lot of people turn up to rallies because they like arguing their values on Facebook, however usually aren't that invested in any deeper ideological sense and clear out when people start physically fighting in the street. Or, they are just there for a piss up and to cause trouble (both sides).
-Extremists Muslims told Safran they get told 'If you don't like it here, leave!'. 'We would!' they reply, 'but we are on a bloody no fly list!'
-The left seem to be so committed to anti racist, anti oppressive agendas, that they conveniently turn a blind eye when a Muslim then makes a racist, homophobic or sexist statement. Safran liked to call these things 'Tangles'. No one wanted to jump on this, as you know....we don't want to look anti Islam like those guys. (I remember this was a real 'tangle' for a lecturer of mine, who identified as a feminist, and also believed in respecting culture and allowing them to practice that here. When someones culture involved practices that were oppressing women...that created a real 'tangle' for her.)
Overall it was a pretty fun read and insight into some of the extreme factions that are operating within communities. Well, not sure how much they are actually operating as such. Myself, like Safran - I really like the 'tangles'. Left / Right pigeon holing is for secondary school.
Look forward to reading 'Murder is Mississippi'!
Safran's time spent going into the depths of Australia's far left and far right seems full of contradictions and tangles. What I particularly found interesting:
-The far right are actually quiet multicultural. One is a Hanson supporter, yet has a wife who came over as a refugee...we like refugees, but only if 'they are hot Eurasians'.
-'This is the most multicultural anti-multicultural rally I have ever been to!'
The far right have quiet a mixed crowd of race and culture, such as the leader of 'Rise up Australia' Danny Nalliah being a Sri Lankan born Christian, or many Aboriginal protesters against Islam immigration. Makes for awkward scenes at a protest when white skinned far left protesters start calling brown skin protesters racist bigots. Much easier to stereotype them all as drunk white skinned bogans (which however do make up the majority it seems, or violent bikie groups which don't help the family friendly image they want to promote). As for Nalliah, it seems he comes from a part of Sri Lanka where there is infighting between Christians and Muslims, so as a extremist Christian he naturally hates them. 'A part of assimilating is leaving behind ethic grievances. Maybe Nalliah is the one who isn't assimilating' (hahaha).
-On bath far right and left rallies, leaders of both sides seem to have agendas that go way beyond your typical cultural protectionism and fighting racism. The far left seemed to want to make advances to turn Australia into a Socialist state, while the far right have these ultra racist (actual racism, not just culturism) about white supremacy not breeding with inferior races etc. A lot of people turn up to rallies because they like arguing their values on Facebook, however usually aren't that invested in any deeper ideological sense and clear out when people start physically fighting in the street. Or, they are just there for a piss up and to cause trouble (both sides).
-Extremists Muslims told Safran they get told 'If you don't like it here, leave!'. 'We would!' they reply, 'but we are on a bloody no fly list!'
-The left seem to be so committed to anti racist, anti oppressive agendas, that they conveniently turn a blind eye when a Muslim then makes a racist, homophobic or sexist statement. Safran liked to call these things 'Tangles'. No one wanted to jump on this, as you know....we don't want to look anti Islam like those guys. (I remember this was a real 'tangle' for a lecturer of mine, who identified as a feminist, and also believed in respecting culture and allowing them to practice that here. When someones culture involved practices that were oppressing women...that created a real 'tangle' for her.)
Overall it was a pretty fun read and insight into some of the extreme factions that are operating within communities. Well, not sure how much they are actually operating as such. Myself, like Safran - I really like the 'tangles'. Left / Right pigeon holing is for secondary school.
Look forward to reading 'Murder is Mississippi'!
Read
November 11, 2020Not sure how I feel about parts of this. I think sometimes it felt a little like trying too hard for shock value. Like talking a lot about the 'diversity' of the alt-right but skimming over how that was a small percentage and most people at the rallies were white. Some of the humour I enjoyed but some I think missed the mark (when Pauline Hanson smiles her eyes squint and she looks kinda Asian. yikes). Also for me, the second half definitely lost momentum and ultimately this book didn't really come to a solid conclusion or point by the end which I found strange. It just.. ended. I feel like it needed an epilogue.
That said, there were parts I enjoyed. The first half was great and I thought the reflection on Safran's experiences with antisemitism from members of both the left and right were interesting. The exploration of the alt-right in Australia and the calculated motives behind some of their talking points, as well as the general public reaction and what some figures are like behind closed doors, is what kept me reading. I'm not sure if Safran is a particularly great writer, which is why some of this got a bit bogged down in missed points and jokes that didn't land but still it's a unique perspective into the far-right wing of Australia
That said, there were parts I enjoyed. The first half was great and I thought the reflection on Safran's experiences with antisemitism from members of both the left and right were interesting. The exploration of the alt-right in Australia and the calculated motives behind some of their talking points, as well as the general public reaction and what some figures are like behind closed doors, is what kept me reading. I'm not sure if Safran is a particularly great writer, which is why some of this got a bit bogged down in missed points and jokes that didn't land but still it's a unique perspective into the far-right wing of Australia
January 16, 2018
Safran is a sarcasm dripping voice of reason in the convoluted world of Australian extremism, where someone like Pauline Hanson can swear-- with a straight face-- that she was never against asian immigration, and where Islamic caucasians read the Quran between bouts of World of Warcraft.
Many moments in this book had me actually laughing out loud, and my partner had to suffer so many of Safran's most clever jokes in bed late at night that she had to remind me that reading was an individual activity.
Safran himself is a bit of a fringe character: A modern liberal journalist who is not an atheist, and who appears to have a deep empathy for even the most deplorable of Australians. One thing is for sure, whenever he releases a book, I'll be buying it.
Many moments in this book had me actually laughing out loud, and my partner had to suffer so many of Safran's most clever jokes in bed late at night that she had to remind me that reading was an individual activity.
Safran himself is a bit of a fringe character: A modern liberal journalist who is not an atheist, and who appears to have a deep empathy for even the most deplorable of Australians. One thing is for sure, whenever he releases a book, I'll be buying it.
June 1, 2017
Immensely quotable and utterly likeable, Safran is a joy to read. This book balances contradiction with whimsy and paints a puzzling picture of extremism in Australia. It's not what you've been lead to believe...
June 14, 2017
‘You really can reverse-park anything into your belief system’ is John Safran’s early reaction to the ideological mixes and contortions he discovers in the Australian far right. E.g. Pastor Daniel Nalliah of the fundamentalist Christian ‘Catch the Fire’ Ministry can devote entire sermons to praising Israel and Judaism, and denouncing anti-semitism, and invite along Blair Cottrell of the ‘United Patriots Front’ (UPF) - a man who wants a picture of Hitler is every school classroom. Not only are Pastor Daniel and Blair relaxed with other in church, they also share public platforms at Reclaim Australia rallies. These rallies - Safran observes - attract diverse looking crowds with people of Asian and Indian migrant backgrounds (Pastor Daniel is Sri Lankan). Safran recalls from his days as a DJ for Triple J’s Hottest 100 events that they would ‘kill for Pastor Daniel’s ethnically diverse crowd’ rather than the sea of white faces that would invariably turn up. Safran’s book is a discussion of the basic unreality of the ‘No Room for Racism’ poster that was circulated as an early response to Reclaim Australia rallies: ‘A skinhead with a swastika inked on his noggin and a cool-as-fuck black dude are starring each other down’. Safran shows up to a Reclaim event - and finds that first speaker on the back of the ute is a woman paying respect to the Wurundjeri people as the traditional owners of the land.
The common thread running through the present far right politics is fear and hatred of Islam. This unites the Pastor Daniels, the Cottrells and (Safran discovers) the Jewish members of the ‘Q Society’. They all believe ‘Western (sometimes Judeo) Christian Civilisation’ is being undermined by liberal multiculturalism opening the door to Islam - although they have a dim view of actual existing Western Civilisation which is apparently so weak it can be threatened by Mosques being built in country towns and Halal food being sold in supermarkets. Throughout the book Safran makes the case that the role of religion in shaping people’s world views is not taken seriously enough in Australia - particularly when dealing with the fluid and opportunistic nature of far-right politics. This is particularly a problem for organised anti-racist politics such as the ‘No Room for Racism’ groups. Their insistence in framing the confrontation with Reclaim in the manner of their poster leaves them ideologically unprepared for the diverse reality of the far right. Safran also criticises ‘No Room for Racism’s’ reluctance to acknowledge anti-semitism as an issue in Australia, particularly if it comes from Muslims. When he points out that No Room has ignored an incident in which a Muslim radical has assaulted a Rabbi he is told that, since it is ‘interpersonal’ rather than ‘structural’ violence, it is of no concern for the anti-racism campaign. Safran also talks to ‘Hamza’, a ISIS supporter who scorns the idea that Australian Muslims travel to the Middle East to fight for the group because they feel ‘oppressed’. ‘Let me count every single person I know who has left’, he says ‘None of them are unemployed. None. Not a single one. Some of them were the most wealthiest of all. This is a purely religious thing.’
Safran’s book is framed as a journey that takes him to meet various characters on the far right, and in that sense it is reportage (with jokes) rather than detailed analysis. His personality is a major character as well - so how much you like the book may come down to how much you take to the Safran style. His take home message is that ‘mainstream’ Australian culture, with its relatively secular outlook in which religion is confined to occasional observances, is unprepared to handle the devoutly religious mindset, which Safran describes as: ‘magical thinking, seeing patterns in the world, a sense that there are no coincidences, a determination that friends and strangers must be saved, karma and providence’. Safran proposes that it is 'magical thinkers’ rather than terrorists who cross borders - and this is why Australian culture will change. And bizarrely it is people who are claiming to ‘defend Australian culture’ - such as Pastor Daniel and Cottrell - who are really ‘un-Australian’ in the religiosity and strange obsessions of their world-views.
Two criticisms of Safran’s book might be that he underplays the role of outright racism, and that he under appreciates the role religion has already played in Australian history and culture. Blair Cottrell may be enough of a pragmatist to play nice with Pastor Daniel’s multiethnic flock, but he clearly comes from the longstanding racist far right, as Safran himself discovers when he delves deeper into Cottrell’s world view. Religion also has a notable track record of intervening in Australian culture and life e.g. the involvement of the Catholic Church in the split of Labor Party which had far reaching consequences for political history.
However Safran’s overall point that the role of religion in far right movements is under appreciated is well made. Anti-racist responses that follow a cartoonish view of the world (skin heads versus cool kids) simply can’t comprehend the appeal of these groups. A materialist analysis of the far right, and of religious fundamentalism generally, misses the point that many people genuinely believe in their religious world views, and are prepared to act on them.
The common thread running through the present far right politics is fear and hatred of Islam. This unites the Pastor Daniels, the Cottrells and (Safran discovers) the Jewish members of the ‘Q Society’. They all believe ‘Western (sometimes Judeo) Christian Civilisation’ is being undermined by liberal multiculturalism opening the door to Islam - although they have a dim view of actual existing Western Civilisation which is apparently so weak it can be threatened by Mosques being built in country towns and Halal food being sold in supermarkets. Throughout the book Safran makes the case that the role of religion in shaping people’s world views is not taken seriously enough in Australia - particularly when dealing with the fluid and opportunistic nature of far-right politics. This is particularly a problem for organised anti-racist politics such as the ‘No Room for Racism’ groups. Their insistence in framing the confrontation with Reclaim in the manner of their poster leaves them ideologically unprepared for the diverse reality of the far right. Safran also criticises ‘No Room for Racism’s’ reluctance to acknowledge anti-semitism as an issue in Australia, particularly if it comes from Muslims. When he points out that No Room has ignored an incident in which a Muslim radical has assaulted a Rabbi he is told that, since it is ‘interpersonal’ rather than ‘structural’ violence, it is of no concern for the anti-racism campaign. Safran also talks to ‘Hamza’, a ISIS supporter who scorns the idea that Australian Muslims travel to the Middle East to fight for the group because they feel ‘oppressed’. ‘Let me count every single person I know who has left’, he says ‘None of them are unemployed. None. Not a single one. Some of them were the most wealthiest of all. This is a purely religious thing.’
Safran’s book is framed as a journey that takes him to meet various characters on the far right, and in that sense it is reportage (with jokes) rather than detailed analysis. His personality is a major character as well - so how much you like the book may come down to how much you take to the Safran style. His take home message is that ‘mainstream’ Australian culture, with its relatively secular outlook in which religion is confined to occasional observances, is unprepared to handle the devoutly religious mindset, which Safran describes as: ‘magical thinking, seeing patterns in the world, a sense that there are no coincidences, a determination that friends and strangers must be saved, karma and providence’. Safran proposes that it is 'magical thinkers’ rather than terrorists who cross borders - and this is why Australian culture will change. And bizarrely it is people who are claiming to ‘defend Australian culture’ - such as Pastor Daniel and Cottrell - who are really ‘un-Australian’ in the religiosity and strange obsessions of their world-views.
Two criticisms of Safran’s book might be that he underplays the role of outright racism, and that he under appreciates the role religion has already played in Australian history and culture. Blair Cottrell may be enough of a pragmatist to play nice with Pastor Daniel’s multiethnic flock, but he clearly comes from the longstanding racist far right, as Safran himself discovers when he delves deeper into Cottrell’s world view. Religion also has a notable track record of intervening in Australian culture and life e.g. the involvement of the Catholic Church in the split of Labor Party which had far reaching consequences for political history.
However Safran’s overall point that the role of religion in far right movements is under appreciated is well made. Anti-racist responses that follow a cartoonish view of the world (skin heads versus cool kids) simply can’t comprehend the appeal of these groups. A materialist analysis of the far right, and of religious fundamentalism generally, misses the point that many people genuinely believe in their religious world views, and are prepared to act on them.
December 17, 2017
I very much liked this & actually laughed aloud more than twice. 3 times in fact. I thought it was going to go chapter 1: John meets the nazis, chapter 2: John meets the terrorists, but it's not like that, it's one hectic journey where he meets as many people as he can & writes about it as it happened.
He meets Blair from the UPF (the united patriot front), who may or may not be a Jew hater. He meets a half Jewess whose so sure he isn't she's joined the movement, that includes marching under the Reclaim Australia, which is actually a coalition of racist groups. Or nationalist groups, however you want to spin it. He also meets Avi, a Jew who runs a gym and wants to teach Jews self defense & Hamza, a Muslim who confesses to supporting ISIS & is actually on a no fly list so he can't go & join them. Which is actually pretty scary, but John makes him out to be a buffoon. That's how they all come across really, as lovable buffoons who don't really know what they are on about.
For example, the organiser of the Cronulla riots with an Asian wife, the UPF supporters going back to a Muslim's house after a protest for the after party, a rabid white racist being from Lebanese descent. There is a sense that they are all playing, & it doesn't really harm anyone.
The anarchists are really pissed off by John, & that's funny & John gets pissed off cause they try to explain there are 2 types of violence, structural & non-structural & that's why it's ok to be racist toward a white person & possibly bash one. That's my take anyhow.
Trump & Pauline both got elected while John was writing this book, possibly the most worrying group is the Q society, another group John tries to infiltrate to find out the truth, are they in fact Jews? You'll have to read the book to find that out, I have given far too much away, but it may in fact be Ralph who is on the no fly list.
I will tell you the funniest part is when John realises he is in fact the sneaky Jew, playing off both sides. In a world gone mad, John takes the piss while telling it how it is. Laugh, then think. Islamophobia & white pride is gaining ground in this country & the people pushing the message are normalising it while seeming like everyday blokes.
I wonder if John will keep in touch with any of his new mates?
He meets Blair from the UPF (the united patriot front), who may or may not be a Jew hater. He meets a half Jewess whose so sure he isn't she's joined the movement, that includes marching under the Reclaim Australia, which is actually a coalition of racist groups. Or nationalist groups, however you want to spin it. He also meets Avi, a Jew who runs a gym and wants to teach Jews self defense & Hamza, a Muslim who confesses to supporting ISIS & is actually on a no fly list so he can't go & join them. Which is actually pretty scary, but John makes him out to be a buffoon. That's how they all come across really, as lovable buffoons who don't really know what they are on about.
For example, the organiser of the Cronulla riots with an Asian wife, the UPF supporters going back to a Muslim's house after a protest for the after party, a rabid white racist being from Lebanese descent. There is a sense that they are all playing, & it doesn't really harm anyone.
The anarchists are really pissed off by John, & that's funny & John gets pissed off cause they try to explain there are 2 types of violence, structural & non-structural & that's why it's ok to be racist toward a white person & possibly bash one. That's my take anyhow.
Trump & Pauline both got elected while John was writing this book, possibly the most worrying group is the Q society, another group John tries to infiltrate to find out the truth, are they in fact Jews? You'll have to read the book to find that out, I have given far too much away, but it may in fact be Ralph who is on the no fly list.
I will tell you the funniest part is when John realises he is in fact the sneaky Jew, playing off both sides. In a world gone mad, John takes the piss while telling it how it is. Laugh, then think. Islamophobia & white pride is gaining ground in this country & the people pushing the message are normalising it while seeming like everyday blokes.
I wonder if John will keep in touch with any of his new mates?
February 25, 2018
I remember reading some thinker define art as being the sole medium that amplifies life's complexities, whereas everything else is in a rush to oversimplify everything. If that's the case, Safran is an artist. I've always considered him an underrated thinker, in all things he delights in the complexities. What he likes to call 'tangles'. In this case it's race politics, which, to the chagrin of both sides are constantly being misrepresented as far simpler than they actually are.
Safran is a curious sort of writer. I remember him saying on his radio show that when he began writing that he was unable or unwilling to find a unique authorial voice and so very directly lifted his voice from an American pulp novelist he admired at the time. It kind of shows, He uses the blunt, direct phrasing of crime writing but uses his own distinct vocabulary and sarcasm, what I'm sure he wouldn't mind me calling his 'schtick'.
To be a little critical. The nature of Safran's contention means that this became repetitive towards the second half. Safran explores divergent concepts and situations but reaches the same conclusions. This doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong, it just means there might not be much more insight to gleam from the last hundred pages that we didn't gleam in the first. There is something of a storyline, Safran starts to see disconcerting transformations in himself while exploring his subject, but this aspect of the book just felt a little rushed, as if it was coupled on at the last moment.
This was entertaining and informative. The aggregate of the subject matter and the author also made it completely original. No other author would have explored this subject in such a way. Some of the reportage dismayed me and some of it I found hopeful. Safran proves the poverty of partisanship. The world is simply so complicated that by subscribing too rigidly to political ideologies any side will eventually run into contradictions, false logic or be forced to augment the truth. He also exposes Australia for what we are, an inconsistent, confused nation hellbent on defining ourselves by what we are not, since we sure as hell don't understand what we are.
Safran is a curious sort of writer. I remember him saying on his radio show that when he began writing that he was unable or unwilling to find a unique authorial voice and so very directly lifted his voice from an American pulp novelist he admired at the time. It kind of shows, He uses the blunt, direct phrasing of crime writing but uses his own distinct vocabulary and sarcasm, what I'm sure he wouldn't mind me calling his 'schtick'.
To be a little critical. The nature of Safran's contention means that this became repetitive towards the second half. Safran explores divergent concepts and situations but reaches the same conclusions. This doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong, it just means there might not be much more insight to gleam from the last hundred pages that we didn't gleam in the first. There is something of a storyline, Safran starts to see disconcerting transformations in himself while exploring his subject, but this aspect of the book just felt a little rushed, as if it was coupled on at the last moment.
This was entertaining and informative. The aggregate of the subject matter and the author also made it completely original. No other author would have explored this subject in such a way. Some of the reportage dismayed me and some of it I found hopeful. Safran proves the poverty of partisanship. The world is simply so complicated that by subscribing too rigidly to political ideologies any side will eventually run into contradictions, false logic or be forced to augment the truth. He also exposes Australia for what we are, an inconsistent, confused nation hellbent on defining ourselves by what we are not, since we sure as hell don't understand what we are.
August 29, 2017
This is an interesting book, by a guy who has done a lot of interesting work. He returns to many of the themes that he has previously explored, in some of his TV shows in his native Australia, such as “Race Relations” and “John Safran Vs God”. Set primarily in and around Melbourne, Safran also ventures out to sleepy Mildura and Bendigo in country Victoria, in pursuit of his quarry. He also ends up as far afield as Sydney and Perth trying to make sense of philosophies, agendas and political beliefs of various extreme groups within Australia.
He is good at highlighting the many contradictions of the Abrahamic faiths, including his own, showing the deep intolerance and accepted cruelty that lies in their texts. He talks to many leaders from a number of so called extreme right groups and finds that many have Asian partners and even children with them, which raises many provocative questions.
Although Safran limits his book to the relatively parochial realms of Australia, he does suggest at the possible global implications and repercussions, and at the end he tags on Trump coming into power and clumsily tries to connect this to his book, as if this was somehow directly a result of his findings. It doesn’t really work at all. Also, the structure is sometimes loose to the point of occasionally losing its way, as you wonder where he is going next. I found the ending pretty poor as it had no real summary, reflection or conclusions of what he found. I was left confused and frustrated. I felt he could have dug deeper and he really should have produced a proper ending.
Overall this is an enjoyable though flawed read, some knowledge of Australian culture and politics certainly helps, but it’s no barrier to enjoying it. Safran shows that rarely are concepts of race and religion as simple as black and white or right and wrong. Instead he reveals the many complex contradictions and back stories that make up these identities and that rarely if ever should any of these people, concepts and faiths be dismissed at first sight.
He is good at highlighting the many contradictions of the Abrahamic faiths, including his own, showing the deep intolerance and accepted cruelty that lies in their texts. He talks to many leaders from a number of so called extreme right groups and finds that many have Asian partners and even children with them, which raises many provocative questions.
Although Safran limits his book to the relatively parochial realms of Australia, he does suggest at the possible global implications and repercussions, and at the end he tags on Trump coming into power and clumsily tries to connect this to his book, as if this was somehow directly a result of his findings. It doesn’t really work at all. Also, the structure is sometimes loose to the point of occasionally losing its way, as you wonder where he is going next. I found the ending pretty poor as it had no real summary, reflection or conclusions of what he found. I was left confused and frustrated. I felt he could have dug deeper and he really should have produced a proper ending.
Overall this is an enjoyable though flawed read, some knowledge of Australian culture and politics certainly helps, but it’s no barrier to enjoying it. Safran shows that rarely are concepts of race and religion as simple as black and white or right and wrong. Instead he reveals the many complex contradictions and back stories that make up these identities and that rarely if ever should any of these people, concepts and faiths be dismissed at first sight.
June 5, 2017
Laugh out loud funny if bleak irony and sass is your cup of tea. A very different picture of the hard left and right than I expected. Well worth a read.
September 6, 2017
Like many people in my generation, I became a fan of Safran when he was in Race Around the World on ABC TV here in Australia, back in the 1990s. It was his first TV appearance, and no doubt as a result of his sometimes extreme stunts (staying illegally overnight in a Japanese subway train station, breaking into Disneyland, taking peyote on camera, etc etc), he cemented himself in Aussie culture. He's been somewhere in the media ever since.
It's perhaps surprising, then, that this is the first book of his that I've read. That's not because of a diminished fandom. Rather, it's because after he started exploring questions about the nature of God, My interest in his output diminished. That and the fact that I got rid of my TV in my early 20s and haven't looked back (except when I realise how much of today's culture is baked in the telly's glow).
But this... this caught my eye.
As an extremist himself, and as someone who feels the fear and does things anyway, I was curious to see what kind of snapshot Safran captured with his work.
A snapshot is truly what it is. It's an interesting exploration of how Australia's extremism became so confusing. About how we have minorities discriminating against other minorities, and that they don't see it. About how ethnicity and culture are not the same thing. About how religion creates some really fucked up perspectives the world. About how Safran's quirky little interests in the entanglement of ideas in society became mainstream. Fast.
Interestingly, the curious, exploratory John in the beginning of the narrative faded away, and disappeared in much the same way as the subject became harder to pin down. The closer he got to the subject, the more diffuse it became, and the more difficult it was to discern which extreme view was which. Those who were initially so vehement seemed to lose interest even in their own causes; people stopped paying attention once it became actually political.
The book itself seemed to peter out towards the end, and if I were less interested in cogitating, it would be a deflating read.
The work leaves us with more questions than it answers. It leaves us wondering, what are the limits of extremity, in a political sense? What happens if we are merely curious, but in our curiosity accumulate artefacts that make us look like extremists? What is the Australian way, really? How should we react to events in the world, when we are such a long way away, so isolated, and getting everything through the filters of the Internet, our biases, and the media? How rogue can you really go in Australia, when as soon as political parties form and people can vote for the "extreme" views, the edges fray and disappear?
It's an amusing read in parts, yet only because Safran is so self-deprecating. I rather formed the view that this came from a discomfort about the topic itself, in the end; as though a concern about the validity of his work - and perhaps even his own "independence" as a journalist potentially at risk when exploring these kinds of things - dampened how much piss you can really take.
Eventually, extremity becomes... the common view.
It was a good read, and I recommend it. If you're an essayist or a writer yourself, you'll also get a whole lot of insight into how the work was crafted, too. Perhaps an unintentional side-view for those who can see it, but it is one that I really appreciated.
It's perhaps surprising, then, that this is the first book of his that I've read. That's not because of a diminished fandom. Rather, it's because after he started exploring questions about the nature of God, My interest in his output diminished. That and the fact that I got rid of my TV in my early 20s and haven't looked back (except when I realise how much of today's culture is baked in the telly's glow).
But this... this caught my eye.
As an extremist himself, and as someone who feels the fear and does things anyway, I was curious to see what kind of snapshot Safran captured with his work.
A snapshot is truly what it is. It's an interesting exploration of how Australia's extremism became so confusing. About how we have minorities discriminating against other minorities, and that they don't see it. About how ethnicity and culture are not the same thing. About how religion creates some really fucked up perspectives the world. About how Safran's quirky little interests in the entanglement of ideas in society became mainstream. Fast.
Interestingly, the curious, exploratory John in the beginning of the narrative faded away, and disappeared in much the same way as the subject became harder to pin down. The closer he got to the subject, the more diffuse it became, and the more difficult it was to discern which extreme view was which. Those who were initially so vehement seemed to lose interest even in their own causes; people stopped paying attention once it became actually political.
The book itself seemed to peter out towards the end, and if I were less interested in cogitating, it would be a deflating read.
The work leaves us with more questions than it answers. It leaves us wondering, what are the limits of extremity, in a political sense? What happens if we are merely curious, but in our curiosity accumulate artefacts that make us look like extremists? What is the Australian way, really? How should we react to events in the world, when we are such a long way away, so isolated, and getting everything through the filters of the Internet, our biases, and the media? How rogue can you really go in Australia, when as soon as political parties form and people can vote for the "extreme" views, the edges fray and disappear?
It's an amusing read in parts, yet only because Safran is so self-deprecating. I rather formed the view that this came from a discomfort about the topic itself, in the end; as though a concern about the validity of his work - and perhaps even his own "independence" as a journalist potentially at risk when exploring these kinds of things - dampened how much piss you can really take.
Eventually, extremity becomes... the common view.
It was a good read, and I recommend it. If you're an essayist or a writer yourself, you'll also get a whole lot of insight into how the work was crafted, too. Perhaps an unintentional side-view for those who can see it, but it is one that I really appreciated.
June 19, 2018
I've been out of the world of skeptics vs. whackjobs for a while, so this was an interesting dip back into that sort of thing; I can imagine that if I'd been following the scene more closely recently I would have found this to be a somewhat boring account of various fringe groups in Australian politics. If you look at enough fringe movements you tend to see common themes and the sorts of weird apparent contradictions make a lot more sense.
That said, from my vague recollection of Safran's modus operandi, I was expecting something a lot less balanced and more flashy than what I got. Maybe he's mellowed over the years or maybe my memory of his previous works are inaccurate; in any case, he struck a very Jon Ronson-esque tone in this book, which was enjoyable.
The overall theme of this book seems to be that a lot of these fringe groups are not what you'd expect (e.g. surprisingly diverse anti-immigration, anti-muslim groups) and that some of those that seem diametrically opposed to one another actually essentially agree on many crazy points. It is probably worth reading just for the fact that Safran goes out of his way to highlight the fact that these fringe groups and extremists probably don't conform to the stereotypes you'd expect - though I suspect that to some extent he goes out of his way to force the truth of the matter into his own unorthodox narrative as well.
3.5 of 5 stars
That said, from my vague recollection of Safran's modus operandi, I was expecting something a lot less balanced and more flashy than what I got. Maybe he's mellowed over the years or maybe my memory of his previous works are inaccurate; in any case, he struck a very Jon Ronson-esque tone in this book, which was enjoyable.
The overall theme of this book seems to be that a lot of these fringe groups are not what you'd expect (e.g. surprisingly diverse anti-immigration, anti-muslim groups) and that some of those that seem diametrically opposed to one another actually essentially agree on many crazy points. It is probably worth reading just for the fact that Safran goes out of his way to highlight the fact that these fringe groups and extremists probably don't conform to the stereotypes you'd expect - though I suspect that to some extent he goes out of his way to force the truth of the matter into his own unorthodox narrative as well.
3.5 of 5 stars
May 7, 2017
I couldn't put this one down. Such an entertaining, insightful, educational read. I must preface my review by saying I've been a fan of Johns for many years. I remember 'Music Jamboree' and a few of his really early things like 'Not the Sunscreen Song' and 'Jewtown' but I became a big fan after 'John Safran vs God'.
I also listened to all his Sunday Night Safran podcasts so I was waiting patiently for this one to come out for a while now...
I really enjoy his writing and I actually enjoy his books more than his TV documentaries. His content really translates well into this medium and genre.
As for the book- wow. What a journey into the extremities of Modern Australian politics. There were a lot of laugh out loud moments - crack ups - so I'm glad I read this over the weekend at home. What a cast of crazies! I found a lot of it quite thought provoking at times. For eg. The intersectional political views we all seem to cross at various intervals i.e a left wing pinko who hates white nationalism yet will oppose Israel and promotes Palestinian national causes. Are we all a little hypocritical with our beliefs? Probably!
All in all I really enjoyed it and thoroughly recommend to those also interested in looking in at religion, politics and how weird our Australian culture is through an outside sarcastic eye!
I also listened to all his Sunday Night Safran podcasts so I was waiting patiently for this one to come out for a while now...
I really enjoy his writing and I actually enjoy his books more than his TV documentaries. His content really translates well into this medium and genre.
As for the book- wow. What a journey into the extremities of Modern Australian politics. There were a lot of laugh out loud moments - crack ups - so I'm glad I read this over the weekend at home. What a cast of crazies! I found a lot of it quite thought provoking at times. For eg. The intersectional political views we all seem to cross at various intervals i.e a left wing pinko who hates white nationalism yet will oppose Israel and promotes Palestinian national causes. Are we all a little hypocritical with our beliefs? Probably!
All in all I really enjoyed it and thoroughly recommend to those also interested in looking in at religion, politics and how weird our Australian culture is through an outside sarcastic eye!
August 6, 2019
Weirdly a much heavier read than I had anticipated, and a much needed long hard look in the mirror about the intersections between the left and the right. Especially some of the more rough contradictions of leftists, and how there was a lot of writing on the wall for Brexit and Trump and Australia's right turns in the last couple of years if you were talking to some of the weirdos that John manages to find.
May 15, 2017
It was impossible not to laugh out loud at so many points throughout this book, at the absurdity of the characters featured, all fighting their side of whatever cause they believe in. Only John Safran could bring their quirks and contradictions to light so well.
As the saying goes "Truth is stranger than fiction", and this book proves it.
As the saying goes "Truth is stranger than fiction", and this book proves it.
June 27, 2018
I've lived in Australia for 31 years, and never really felt like I understood it until now. In this enthralling book, John Safran hangs out with the kinds of people I wouldn't be brave enough to make eye contact with, and asks them questions about race, nationality and culture... which turn out to have surprisingly complex answers. Highly, highly recommended.
June 10, 2017
John Safran is a very interesting character who operates in a world I view from afar, even though he's a local, more or less, although raised in a different environment. His religious and cultural background is in orthodox Judaism in a particular suburban area of Melbourne, whilst mine is the working-class Catholicism of the western suburbs of the same city. Funnily enough, he's known for his media association with the Catholic priest Father Bob Maguire, a kind of irreverent knockabout character.
From his output to date Safran seems drawn to extremists or extreme situations of various kinds, which entails some kind of physical danger. He's obviously fascinated by belief and why people think and act the way they do, and he also has an eye as well as a mind for contradictions and paradoxes. He's not a great prose stylist by any means but the narrative style he presents here is easily understood, containing much florid language (from himself and others), and his judgements are incisive. What comes to mind is crime journalism – very matter of fact.
In this book he recounts very recent experiences with what could fairly be called extremist groups of both the left and right in Australia, mostly various right-wing groups and their left wing opposing group. From what's here, neither group could be characterised as containing deep thinkers.
The overall theme is of issues around racism and multiculturalism and the paradoxes contained within. So you have Islamists and white supremacists, Muslims and Jews. There are entertaining exchanges with members of all these groups, as well as Australian bystanders. The various reasons why individuals fit themselves into particular ideologies are fascinating, including those who want to "reclaim" Australia but who are not of European stock, obviously unaware of the deliberately white foundation of the Commonwealth of Australia. As a fifth-generation European Australian whose family came here exactly 160 years ago last month (May) and whose mother informed me today that it was her father's birthday today 146 years ago (in Tasmania) I get really confused about what needs to be reclaimed on all sorts of levels. Maybe this kind of thing is simply about con-men and conning people, hard to say.
A subtext of the book is Safran's own Jewish origins, as there's a strong theme of anti-semitism from all sides and this leads him to seek advice from a particular Rabbi for some clarifications on what is claimed as part of a general process of engaging with the religious beliefs of the various ideologues. One of the things he states is that Australians don't "get religion" which is a big statement, but one which seems more than plausible to me. What he means is that as a rule Australians see religion as a private matter and possibly as a social belief, like turning up to church only for specific events and so on. Consequently, there's a difficulty with people proclaiming a particular belief and dissenting from others (my words) on that basis.
This unease would extend to depictions of what are seen as American expressions of belief and would include personal statements like belonging to their local church or volunteering there and so on In the organisational sphere 25-30 years ago, I found American visiting speakers would routinely proclaim this kind of thing, to the general bewilderment and uneasiness of the audience. It's no accident in that respect that the most public of right=wing organisations in Australia, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, does not present itself, or its leader as a church-going group. This also seems to be the case for almost all the far-right groups engaged with here. Other people on the right wing of politics will go on about "Judeo-Christian values" but they're essentially left unstated, from my academic point of view anyway.
One gets the whiff of a desire for political power, gained partly through being coy about core objectives, and the violent aspects of the confrontation between those of the left and right are both expressed and managed. The language of the far-left group is stolidly Marxian in a particular way, and imbued with the notion of violent struggle. I don't understand why anyone would want to use violence in this way, left or right, and think that it would be helpful to their cause, but then these are ideologues, many of whom have belonged to various groups with mutually exclusive ideas. In this respect it's the black and white nature of the belief rather than what the belief is that seems to be important.
For me, this is redolent of what used to be called "conversion experiences" where people went from one set of beliefs to another, which may be quite opposite. I knew a person who was for many years a strong atheist, but who converted to an evangelical Christian group almost overnight. There have been other examples.
Anyway, this is a book that is interesting, confronting and informative. John Safran isn't an idiot, even though what he engages in might make you think about that.
From his output to date Safran seems drawn to extremists or extreme situations of various kinds, which entails some kind of physical danger. He's obviously fascinated by belief and why people think and act the way they do, and he also has an eye as well as a mind for contradictions and paradoxes. He's not a great prose stylist by any means but the narrative style he presents here is easily understood, containing much florid language (from himself and others), and his judgements are incisive. What comes to mind is crime journalism – very matter of fact.
In this book he recounts very recent experiences with what could fairly be called extremist groups of both the left and right in Australia, mostly various right-wing groups and their left wing opposing group. From what's here, neither group could be characterised as containing deep thinkers.
The overall theme is of issues around racism and multiculturalism and the paradoxes contained within. So you have Islamists and white supremacists, Muslims and Jews. There are entertaining exchanges with members of all these groups, as well as Australian bystanders. The various reasons why individuals fit themselves into particular ideologies are fascinating, including those who want to "reclaim" Australia but who are not of European stock, obviously unaware of the deliberately white foundation of the Commonwealth of Australia. As a fifth-generation European Australian whose family came here exactly 160 years ago last month (May) and whose mother informed me today that it was her father's birthday today 146 years ago (in Tasmania) I get really confused about what needs to be reclaimed on all sorts of levels. Maybe this kind of thing is simply about con-men and conning people, hard to say.
A subtext of the book is Safran's own Jewish origins, as there's a strong theme of anti-semitism from all sides and this leads him to seek advice from a particular Rabbi for some clarifications on what is claimed as part of a general process of engaging with the religious beliefs of the various ideologues. One of the things he states is that Australians don't "get religion" which is a big statement, but one which seems more than plausible to me. What he means is that as a rule Australians see religion as a private matter and possibly as a social belief, like turning up to church only for specific events and so on. Consequently, there's a difficulty with people proclaiming a particular belief and dissenting from others (my words) on that basis.
This unease would extend to depictions of what are seen as American expressions of belief and would include personal statements like belonging to their local church or volunteering there and so on In the organisational sphere 25-30 years ago, I found American visiting speakers would routinely proclaim this kind of thing, to the general bewilderment and uneasiness of the audience. It's no accident in that respect that the most public of right=wing organisations in Australia, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, does not present itself, or its leader as a church-going group. This also seems to be the case for almost all the far-right groups engaged with here. Other people on the right wing of politics will go on about "Judeo-Christian values" but they're essentially left unstated, from my academic point of view anyway.
One gets the whiff of a desire for political power, gained partly through being coy about core objectives, and the violent aspects of the confrontation between those of the left and right are both expressed and managed. The language of the far-left group is stolidly Marxian in a particular way, and imbued with the notion of violent struggle. I don't understand why anyone would want to use violence in this way, left or right, and think that it would be helpful to their cause, but then these are ideologues, many of whom have belonged to various groups with mutually exclusive ideas. In this respect it's the black and white nature of the belief rather than what the belief is that seems to be important.
For me, this is redolent of what used to be called "conversion experiences" where people went from one set of beliefs to another, which may be quite opposite. I knew a person who was for many years a strong atheist, but who converted to an evangelical Christian group almost overnight. There have been other examples.
Anyway, this is a book that is interesting, confronting and informative. John Safran isn't an idiot, even though what he engages in might make you think about that.
January 3, 2021
While I consider myself a 'left wing' Greenie, I also am routinely driven mad by the left's constant pandering and simplified versions of social complexities, obsession with identity politics and moral grandstanding (these often conveniently co-occur). However, whenever voicing concern over leftist ideology, right wing friends see it as an opportunity for a pile on, left wing friends question if I'm really part of the club. It's enough to make me feel, at times, clinically insane.
Then comes along a book like this, with Safran saying 'no really, it's pretty confusing!'.
Like, ok: There are the bad guys (white people, oppressors) and good guys (immigrants, oppressed). Ok, I can understand that.
But what about when the Indigenous Australian and Neo-Nazi groups find common ground based on anti-Semitism (what the)? Or when the Islamophobic sentiment is coming from Pacific Islanders (I thought only white oppressors did that?). *What about* when the Reclaim Australia rally (bad) speaker is a Sri-Lankan immigrant (good) with a culturally diverse base (good) protesting against Islam (bad) and the predominantly white (bad) 'no room for racism' group is defending Islam (good) but inadvertently supporting white Islamic convert and ISIS supporter Musa Cerantonio (..bad).
It's like.. a mess. After reading this I don't feel that I have any particular clarity on the issues we face regarding culture, religion, ethnicity and race, but I feel a bit less insane.
Then comes along a book like this, with Safran saying 'no really, it's pretty confusing!'.
Like, ok: There are the bad guys (white people, oppressors) and good guys (immigrants, oppressed). Ok, I can understand that.
But what about when the Indigenous Australian and Neo-Nazi groups find common ground based on anti-Semitism (what the)? Or when the Islamophobic sentiment is coming from Pacific Islanders (I thought only white oppressors did that?). *What about* when the Reclaim Australia rally (bad) speaker is a Sri-Lankan immigrant (good) with a culturally diverse base (good) protesting against Islam (bad) and the predominantly white (bad) 'no room for racism' group is defending Islam (good) but inadvertently supporting white Islamic convert and ISIS supporter Musa Cerantonio (..bad).
It's like.. a mess. After reading this I don't feel that I have any particular clarity on the issues we face regarding culture, religion, ethnicity and race, but I feel a bit less insane.
May 18, 2017
Wasn't a bad overall read. The book broadly covers the rise of the 'bogan' far-right groups in Australia who all call themselves patriots and curiously all eventually devolve into white nationalism and anti-Semitism.
I was hoping for more of a perspective or insight from the Australian far-left, but as such it's mostly an exploration of the Australian far-right with the left only mentioned in passing. It felt a bit listless at the end, as well, concluding with a quick chapter on Trump gaining the presidency. Overall I felt as if John was being very careful not to interject his own politics into the book - parts of the book came across to me as John trying his very hardest to be a 'real grown up journalist' - which is fine if you want to sell a lot of books to a lot of different people, but I would have preferred something a bit more personal, one way or another.
It'll be interesting to see how this book reads in 10 years time - a curious footnote in history, or the first page of some dark and stormy times.
I was hoping for more of a perspective or insight from the Australian far-left, but as such it's mostly an exploration of the Australian far-right with the left only mentioned in passing. It felt a bit listless at the end, as well, concluding with a quick chapter on Trump gaining the presidency. Overall I felt as if John was being very careful not to interject his own politics into the book - parts of the book came across to me as John trying his very hardest to be a 'real grown up journalist' - which is fine if you want to sell a lot of books to a lot of different people, but I would have preferred something a bit more personal, one way or another.
It'll be interesting to see how this book reads in 10 years time - a curious footnote in history, or the first page of some dark and stormy times.
June 28, 2017
John Safran is a polarising Australian journalist.
Love him or hate him, very few people are ambivalent to him.
His squeaky voice on the ABC challenging religion, race, really any controversial subject can dismiss him as an annoying hyperactive pain in the arse. However, beneath the brash exterior is a thoughtful and though-provoking journalist.
As a young Jewish man, he is equally likely to ask a Rabbi, a Catholic priest or a Mufti the same difficult questions. He is well read, and well researched.
This book was a quick and engaging read highlight the idiocy of the extreme racists (from whatever side of the multicultural sphere). He spoke with Muslim extremists, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists.
If you don't like swearing, if you want a one sided, simple discussion, then this book is not for you. If however you are prepared to open your opinions to a different perspective, with keen observations of the ridiculous nature of all types of bigotry, then this is a book worth your time.
Love him or hate him, very few people are ambivalent to him.
His squeaky voice on the ABC challenging religion, race, really any controversial subject can dismiss him as an annoying hyperactive pain in the arse. However, beneath the brash exterior is a thoughtful and though-provoking journalist.
As a young Jewish man, he is equally likely to ask a Rabbi, a Catholic priest or a Mufti the same difficult questions. He is well read, and well researched.
This book was a quick and engaging read highlight the idiocy of the extreme racists (from whatever side of the multicultural sphere). He spoke with Muslim extremists, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists.
If you don't like swearing, if you want a one sided, simple discussion, then this book is not for you. If however you are prepared to open your opinions to a different perspective, with keen observations of the ridiculous nature of all types of bigotry, then this is a book worth your time.
March 20, 2018
I’m a big John Safran fan but I struggled with this book. This book took me a year to finish.
In theory it had everything I’d love. Set in my home town, locations I know well, people I’ve interacted with on Facebook (Avi posts inflammatory videos on my neighbourhood groups). Just didn’t have much to hook me in and care about where it went. Nothing seemed shocking (something I’ve perhaps come to expect from Safran) as I pretty much left the book with the same opinion of all the players as when I started it. I concede it picked up towards the end. Much preferred Murder in Mississippi.
If you read this do so via audiobook for the full John Safran experience. 2.5 stars for the plot but 4 stars to John as always getting himself into tricky situations and chumming up with all sorts to find the facts. He’s up there with Louis Theroux.
In theory it had everything I’d love. Set in my home town, locations I know well, people I’ve interacted with on Facebook (Avi posts inflammatory videos on my neighbourhood groups). Just didn’t have much to hook me in and care about where it went. Nothing seemed shocking (something I’ve perhaps come to expect from Safran) as I pretty much left the book with the same opinion of all the players as when I started it. I concede it picked up towards the end. Much preferred Murder in Mississippi.
If you read this do so via audiobook for the full John Safran experience. 2.5 stars for the plot but 4 stars to John as always getting himself into tricky situations and chumming up with all sorts to find the facts. He’s up there with Louis Theroux.
March 19, 2019
Although we like to label people as 'good' or 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong', 'us' and 'them', when digging deeper we begin to see the world is inherently far more complicated than that and Safran does a brilliant job of highlighting the complexities of extremism in today's Australia. Finishing this book, I don't know if I feel better educated or just more confused. Honestly, the mind boggles.
But I laughed out loud more than a few times while reading, his dry humour never fails to disappoint.
But I laughed out loud more than a few times while reading, his dry humour never fails to disappoint.
April 29, 2017
Nobody can infiltrate and reveal the contradictions within Australia's white nationalist/anti-Islam and anarchist/socialist groups like John Safran. Equal parts terrifying and hilarious, this book shows I have no idea what's happening in my own city let alone my country. It's disorienting and insightful and shows how jumbled views on religion, ethnicity and race really are in Australia. When asked his role at a UPF rally, Safran replies, 'I'm in charge of sarcasm.' And thank goodness for that or I don't think I could cope.
June 24, 2017
At first I felt confused...... the conflicting and overlapping beliefs defy logic.
Then, just when I thought I had a handle on the larger-than-life cartoon characters representing some of these political protest groups (with hidden agendas), Safran would uncover some other juicy tidbit.....and I became confused once more.
Truly, there are enough oddball characters here to fill a whole series of 'The Simpsons'.
Safran's style is amusingly entertaining......but if I really think about his findings, we should all be afraid...... very afraid.
Then, just when I thought I had a handle on the larger-than-life cartoon characters representing some of these political protest groups (with hidden agendas), Safran would uncover some other juicy tidbit.....and I became confused once more.
Truly, there are enough oddball characters here to fill a whole series of 'The Simpsons'.
Safran's style is amusingly entertaining......but if I really think about his findings, we should all be afraid...... very afraid.
April 16, 2018
Shit stirrer extraordinaire John Safran is at it again with his latest book. This time he goes and hangs out with Australian extremists, whether it be right wing Caucasian "Patriot" groups or Muslim dudes with sympathies to Isis in an attempt to figure out just why these guys think the way they do. Of course he uncovers massive hypocrisies, but mainly he discover these guys are just intolerant morons (and they are usually all male). It's an alarming, important and timely book, what with Brexit, Trump, etc. Not an easy read, but still highly recommended.
July 4, 2017
I was disappointed. Interesting exploration of the various characters on the far right in Australia, but without an overarching message or point. Don't expect another 'Murder in Mississippi'.
Safran pokes fun at the left elements but stops at accusing them of light hypocrisy and contradiction. I really wanted him to dig deeper and make an actual point - which he did in 'Mississippi'. It seems he's back to his TV show treatment of issues - more comedy and entertainment than anything deeper.
Safran pokes fun at the left elements but stops at accusing them of light hypocrisy and contradiction. I really wanted him to dig deeper and make an actual point - which he did in 'Mississippi'. It seems he's back to his TV show treatment of issues - more comedy and entertainment than anything deeper.
January 9, 2018
Definitely recommend for those who life John Safran's style of witty, tongue in cheek commentary. The book looks at the far right of Australian politics, and the narratives and interactions of race, nationalism, religion, politics and identity. It also takes a good look at the hypocrisy and contradictions of both left and right movements.
A bit of a worrying, confusing and uncomfortable read at times, worth checking out.
A bit of a worrying, confusing and uncomfortable read at times, worth checking out.
January 14, 2018
Safran's not a great writer, but he is a decent story-teller. And it's hard not to admire his persistence.
I particularly liked the little digression on magical pixie thinking and its increasing representation as a by-product of multi-cultural societies. Also appreciated the journalism - going to speak to people who I'm unlikely to ever seek out and letting them speak. Still think that Safran can't help but mix that with unnecessary self-indulgence. Comes as part of the package though.
I particularly liked the little digression on magical pixie thinking and its increasing representation as a by-product of multi-cultural societies. Also appreciated the journalism - going to speak to people who I'm unlikely to ever seek out and letting them speak. Still think that Safran can't help but mix that with unnecessary self-indulgence. Comes as part of the package though.
July 24, 2017
Brilliant, brave, illuminating and very funny.
September 27, 2017
4.5 Bogan Stars
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews