logo
Neo-Nazi safari

Neo-Nazi safari

Photo by Hollie Adams/Reuters
In the 1980s, Bill Buford began work on Among the Thugs, an immersive account of the thrill of football hooliganism – or, as Buford more prosaically put it, an investigation into 'why young males in England were rioting every Saturday'. It has since been hailed as a classic study of violence and sport, of the paramilitary grandstand, but also for its insights into radicalisation and pack mentality.
When he first went undercover in the British far right in 2023, in the project that has become Year of the Rat, Harry Shukman didn't know what kind of violent potential he might find. But, as he writes in the book's introduction, his investigation has been lent a sharper salience by the events of last summer: not the weekly, rhythmic violence of the football terraces, but one fell spate. Why in August of 2024 did young males in England embark on their greatest exhibition of far-right rioting since the Second World War?
Shukman's investigation took place over the calendar year of 2023. Working with the anti-fascist campaign group Hope not Hate, he became 'Chris', an apparent sympathiser who allows himself to be led down the spiral of the far-right network, down into its rancid depths. Parts of his findings were broadcast as the Channel 4 documentary Undercover: Exposing the Far Right in October 2024. But this courageous and diligent book is the full account of Shukman's subterranean year. He is interested in what would bring otherwise everyday people to commit themselves to such doomed political ostracism, and on the more powerful interests urging extreme ideas about race, IQ and human reproduction into the mainstream. The result is a close and gripping inspection of the character of the far right and threat it poses.
Though each of Shukman's chapters cover a specific far-right group or sub-group, his book divides broadly into two halves, covering two roughly defined realms of far-right politics. The first is what we might call its proletarian, or at least quotidian aspect, hidden within British civic society. Shukman is interested in the extremists scattered among the eccentrics of everyday life, not so much reds under the bed, but the fascists among the fruitcakes. This leads him first to a group called the 'Basketweavers'. Advertising itself as a free discussion forum, and organised on secretive online forums like Discord, 'Chris' must answer an allusive political questionnaire to gain entry (asked his political views he replies that he is a 'a nationalist and a traditionalist' hoping to meet similar, innuendo enough to pass muster). This gives him access to the weavers' meet-ups in pubs, where participants are free to trade in conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism and racism.
Via the network he meets at the 'Basketweavers', Shukman's persona is able to gain invitation to further gatherings and groupings: a conference in Estonia, bringing together race scientists and manosphere influencers; an English activist group called Identity England; Britain First, a political party led by Paul Golding. Each faction has its own aesthetics – conferences like the one in Estonia attempt to appear as suave and academic as they can manage, while Britain First is ultimately heir to the kind of alleyway racism we've known from the National Front to the BNP, complete with coke-sniffing heavies and hooligan-firm veterans straight out of Buford. But several common themes do emerge across these geographies and generations.
The first is that very masculine combination of a self-pity and aggression – and it is striking how few female characters crop up in this portion of the book. Whether at the piss-up or the political demo, each of these groups is marshalled through a form of petty hierarchy more familiar to the sixth-form common room than the Sturmabteilung. At Basketweaver events, participants are egged on to cross taboo thresholds ('Say it! Say n*****! N*****!'), while the awkward and sexually inexperienced, particularly virgins, are viciously mocked. First encountering him in Estonia, Shukman introduces us to the fascinating figure of Ryan, who projects a sub-Andrew Tate lifestyle of fast cars and fast (but strictly Caucasian) women, and who touts pick-up tips to desperate young men, bringing them under his thrall. Nights out after far-right conferences often conclude with a visit to the massage parlour or the strip club. And even active members of the far right remain stranded in the swamp of adolescent sexual milestones: Shukman quotes from the autobiography of one Holocaust denier, who blames 'the late loss of [his] virginity' for placing him at odds with society from early on.
But a further common theme, not disconnected from these whimpers of neglect, was how little threat I felt from the networks and characters Shukman describes – certainly not as much as him, who exposed himself to great physical threat to report on them. Throughout the book he emphasises the intellectual networks fomenting these sites of activity, connected by phoney academics like Neema Parvini who circulate the Great Replacement theories these men then regurgitate. But whenever he gets down to head count, Shukman couldn't truly scare me. Discussing the Basketweavers, Shukman writes of an 'enormous' organisation of 'more than 2,000 members worldwide, with hundreds of them in the UK'. But he then tries to present this as an increase on Patriotic Alternative, at one time 'perhaps Britain's biggest far-right group, [with] a membership of a few hundred', which sounds quite similar to 'hundreds' to me. 'The membership of Identity England is moribund,' he concedes more straightforwardly, 'with approximately a dozen activists.' Britain First 'has represented one of the biggest far-right electoral threats', he writes elsewhere, before adding that, despite Golding's ludicrous claim of '20,000 members', there 'are around forty inner-circle activists'.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
The events of last summer show how small groups can still rally mobs to their side. And Shukman's unsparing scrutiny is clearly necessary – he writes at one point of a previous Hope not Hate investigation which revealed two members of the Royal Navy to be far-right activists, including one serving on a nuclear submarine. But though at times escalating to the scale of a far-right pogrom, the distinctive thing about the August riots was their organic, localised nature, involving individuals with little or no history of far-right involvement. And to pep up the threat from the groups he has investigated, Shukman unwisely extends his definition of far right to take in Nigel Farage ('Far-right activity in the UK takes a number of forms… These range from large parties, like Reform UK…'). While we should never shy away from what is paranoid and extreme about Farageism, there are clear differences between it and a group like Identity England. The latter is more of a sociological than a political phenomenon, involving not the clash of coherent ideological forces but the mutation of more elusive and self-selecting human neuroses.
The second half of Shukman's investigation is more threatening, interesting itself in hyper-elite incarnations of far-right ideology. This is a world of dark money and dark ideas: the IQ-derived race science promoted by quack research institutions like 'Aporia', which, posing as another potential financier, Shukman reveals has received funding from the Silicon Valley powerbroker Andrew Conru. Then there is the super-wealthy couple and parents of four, Simone and Malcolm Collins, purported pro-natalists who, Shukman reveals by again feigning personal interest in their projects, are also very interested in IQ, and make use of experimental screening technology to test their embryos for intelligence. Their goal is to sustain global humanity's cognition through the preservation of a boffin caste who can settle in exclusive, hyper-intelligent communities. (They claim to have had talks with the government of the Isle of Man to discuss establishing one such community on its territory.)
In common with the foot soldiers of the British far right, the Collinses are self-deluding and bizarre (at one very funny point in what is a surprisingly witty book, Malcolm claims that for over a decade he drank 45 beers a day, every day, which Shukman calculates as 'a beer every twenty minutes… a preposterous amount of cans'). But even if these are hobby horses, luxury bigotries, the difference is their connection to the powerful which, in the ideologically accelerationist space of Silicon Valley, is tremendous. And not just in America: through the character of Andrew Sabisky, one of Dominic Cummings' original squad of 'weirdos and misfits', Shukman shows the spread of similar ideas into the British elite. Sabisky was introduced to Boris Johnson's No 10 before being rapidly ejected when his history of publishing on evolutionary racism was unveiled. But Shukman perhaps leans slightly too much on Sabisky's braggadocio when the latter claims he's still in contact with Conservative Party intellectuals and even Westminster itself (a Conservative source told Shukman that this wasn't true).
Shukman's reporting is bold and assiduous, and provides rare documentary insight. His reasons for going undercover – that it is the only way to capture these people with true candour – is justified by his results. His writing is precise and direct, brightened by an off-key, deadpan humour (after describing a character called Sam, whose girlfriend dumped him after he embraced racial genetics, and who now refuses to date Asian or Jewish women, Shukman simply adds, 'Sam is still looking for a partner'). And his approach is elevated by an interest in the psychological state of his subjects, not their political instincts, but their pre-political conditioning. 'I was struck by their loneliness,' he writes. 'Many of them are indeed lonely, and share their disappointment that the friendships and relationships they expected from life have yet to materialise.' He quotes one Basketweaver: 'I spent most of my formative years being rejected by people.'
But ultimately Shukman's distance from the men he writes about is too great to overcome. In Among the Thugs, Bill Buford sought to understand football violence by doing it, releasing himself to the crushing mass. While Shukman released himself to the spiral of the far-right network, he couldn't abandon his consciousness to the spiral of their thinking, to the kind of impotence that longs desperately for prepotence. Understanding that sublimation has engaged and dismayed some of our very greatest minds. It is not to Shukman's discredit that he has not cracked it. Even if these politics remain opaque, we understand their shape and patterns better than we did before.
Year of the Rat: Undercover in the British Far Right
Harry Shukman
Chatto & Windus, 320pp, £20
Purchasing a book may earn the NS a commission from Bookshop.org, who support independent bookshops
[See also: Southport and the rage of England]
Related

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why I stand by my claim after fierce debate that followed it
Why I stand by my claim after fierce debate that followed it

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

Why I stand by my claim after fierce debate that followed it

Three weeks ago, I argued that central to any strategy must be a successful campaign to change UK constitutional law so that the prohibition on the Scottish Parliament even discussing the matter is removed. This provoked more reaction among readers of this paper than any column I've written before or since. Most of it negative, some harsh. I was variously accused of indulging in political fantasy, not having a clue, offering false hope, sowing confusion and offering an irrational analysis. Jings! A long reply concluded: 'So long as the SNP of Mr Sheppard and his ilk blind themselves to the straightforward reality of the issue and keep wittering on about the useless diversion of a never-never referendum, independence will elude us.' READ MORE: Scottish independence support at 58 per cent if Nigel Farage becomes PM – poll Now, before we go any further, I should make it abundantly clear that I speak only for myself, I do not represent the SNP. Nor do I now, or have I ever had, an ilk. Let me try to clarify why this is important. In November 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the reservations to the 1998 Devolution Act prevented the Scottish Parliament discussing or acting on matters relating to the constitution of the UK. Unless and until that is changed, it will not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to take any action in pursuit of Scotland's independence no matter how many of its members want to do so. That is why I say the main problem is not obtaining a mandate but getting the means to implement it. Pretending this is not a problem doesn't make it go away. I'm not saying it is the only thing we should be campaigning on, just that it needs to be part of our approach. Of course, the priority must be making the arguments for independence in the first place and showing that self-government would be a better way of marshalling this country's enviable resources than having them siphoned off by Westminster. Nor am I saying that we re-run a request for Westminster to grant Holyrood the power to hold a referendum. I'm saying the law must be changed to recognise that the Scottish Parliament has the responsibility to represent the views of the people on how they should be governed. It is up to that parliament how they do it. A referendum could be one way. Or a citizens' assembly leading to legislation. Or, in some circumstances, simply demanding that the UK start negotiations on Scotland's independence. I do not for one moment think this will be an easy change, or that the UK will meekly agree to it even if a new Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly demands it. We will need a serious campaign of public education and mobilisation together with a legal and political strategy designed to apply the maximum pressure to the UK. Once next year's Scottish elections are over, the UK will move towards the 2029 Westminster election. With an unpopular government and its political classes in disarray, the British state will experience unprecedented political turbulence. We would be daft not to take advantage of it. Several correspondents have challenged the importance I put on the Supreme Court decision, arguing it does not hinder Scotland deciding to go independent. To quote one: 'UK law and constitution, for what they are worth, do not prohibit it. The Supreme Court decision said nothing about it.' This line of reasoning says the Supreme Court decision only ruled on the competence of the parliament and not the principle of self-determination of the people. I stand accused of misleading people by conflating the two. There are two points here. The first is that if the people of Scotland cannot exercise their right to self-determination by electing a representative parliament, then by what other conceivable means might they do so? The court's judgement is very much a real-world block to the exercise of the right to self-determination. But there's more. As well as ruling on the competence of Holyrood, the Supreme Court also gave an opinion on the matter of self-determination itself. This was in response to argument presented by the SNP, not the Scottish Government, who argued that the Scottish people had the right to self-determination under international law. The court cited the example of Quebec and extensively quoted the Canadian Supreme Court which denied the province's right to self-determination. It went on to say (paragraph 89) 'in our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom'. There's not a lot of ambiguity there. Changing UK constitutional law isn't the only thing that needs to be done to offer Scotland a path to independence, but it is part of it. As we ask the electorate to vote for the principle of Scotland's political independence, we must also offer a route to it. The more votes we get, the more pressure will build for constitutional change, and the sooner people will get the right to choose an independent future.

Reform UK to send first ‘Doge' team to look at council spending
Reform UK to send first ‘Doge' team to look at council spending

ITV News

time3 hours ago

  • ITV News

Reform UK to send first ‘Doge' team to look at council spending

Reform UK is set to send in its first Elon Musk-style Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) unit to look at 'wasteful spending' in councils. A team of software engineers, data analysts and forensic auditors will 'visit and analyse' local authorities, starting with Kent County Council on Monday, the party said. It follows the US Doge, which was launched during Donald Trump's presidency to cut federal spending. Billionaire Musk was involved but has since left his position spearheading the unit. Reform says its UK version will be led by a yet-unnamed man described as one of the country's 'leading tech entrepreneurs with a specialism in data analytics who has also been a turnaround CEO'. The party said that the unit will use artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis tools and forensic auditing techniques to 'identify wasteful spending and recommend actionable solutions'. A letter sent to Kent County Council, which Reform now controls after the May local elections, read: 'The scope of the review includes but is not limited to: Contractual arrangements with suppliers and consultants, all capital expenditure, use of framework agreements and direct awards, any off-book or contingent liabilities, use of reserves and financial resilience, any audit flags raised by internal or external auditors in the last three years. 'We request that all relevant council officers provide the Doge team with full and prompt access to: Council-held documents, reports and records (electronic and paper), relevant finance, procurement, audit and contract data, meeting minutes and correspondence concerning major procurements, any internal investigations or whistleblowing reports relevant to financial matters, any additional documents that might be of assistance.' It added: 'Should you resist this request, we are ready to pass a council motion to compel the same and will consider any obstruction of our councillors' duties to be gross misconduct. We trust this will not be required.' It is signed by council leader Linden Kemkaran, party chairman Zia Yusuf and party leader Nigel Farage. Mr Yusuf said: 'For too long British people have been British taxpayers have watched their money vanish into a black hole. 'Their taxes keep going up, their bin collections keep getting less frequent, potholes remain unfixed, their local services keep getting cut. Reform won a historic victory on a mandate to change this. 'As promised, we have created a UK Doge to identify and cut wasteful spending of taxpayer money. Our team will use cutting-edge technology and deliver real value for voters.' During a local election campaign launch in March, Mr Farage told supporters: 'Frankly folks, what we need in this country to pay for the cuts that people deserve and need, we need a British form of Doge, as Elon Musk has got in America. Let's have a British Doge.'

Families of Chinook crash victims to launch legal action against MoD
Families of Chinook crash victims to launch legal action against MoD

Rhyl Journal

time4 hours ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Families of Chinook crash victims to launch legal action against MoD

They want a High Court judge to be able to review information which they say was not included in previous investigations, and which they believe will shed new light on the airworthiness of the helicopter. RAF Chinook ZD576 was carrying 25 British intelligence personnel from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George near Inverness when it crashed in foggy weather on June 2, 1994. All 25 passengers – made up of personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army – were killed, along with the helicopter's four crew members. The families of the victims, who have coalesced into the Chinook Justice Campaign, said failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the UK Government's human rights obligations. In a letter to the Government 31 years after the crash, the group said: 'The investigations conducted to date, whether considered individually or in combination, have failed to discharge the investigative duty.' They have also called for the release of documents that were sealed at the time of the crash for 100 years, something revealed in a BBC documentary last year. Solicitor Mark Stephens, who is representing the families, said: 'In this case, the families of those who were killed have seen more than enough evidence to convince them, and us, that there was a failure by the MoD to apply appropriate safeguards in order to protect the passengers and crew. 'In fact, they were put on board an aircraft that was known to be positively dangerous and should never have taken off. 'That is why we are seeking a judicial review into the Government's failure to hold a public inquiry – which the families have sought for more than a year.' Following the crash, the Chinook's pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were accused of gross negligence, but this verdict was overturned by the UK Government 17 years later, following a campaign by the families. A subsequent review by Lord Philip set out 'numerous concerns' raised by those who worked on the Chinooks, with the MoD's testing centre at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire declaring the Chinook Mk2 helicopters 'unairworthy' prior to the crash. Esme Sparks, who was seven years old when her father Major Gary Sparks was killed in the crash, said: 'We don't want to have to take legal action against the Government and MoD but we do want and need answers surrounding the circumstance of this crash. 'We want to know who or what is being protected? Who made the decision to let this helicopter take off? What is being hidden? In our view, a public inquiry is key.' Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father, Lt Col John Tobias, 41, was killed, said: 'It's clear to me that a complete lack of duty of care was given to those passengers because they got on a Chinook that wasn't fit for flight. 'And really, the government need to show their duty of candour and really be open and transparent about what's in those documents and give us the opportunity to really understand anything that's in them that could give us more answers about what happened.' The MoD said that records held in The National Archives contain personal information and early release of those documents would breach their data protection rights. An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store