Looking backwards, looking forward

Will Wright

Coming together, coming apart

In 1967, a number of British Nationalist parties merged to form the National Front. I do not know if the term ‘nationalist unity’ was bandied about, but that was the unmistakable aim of the merger. Almost all British Nationalists belonged to the National Front.

By 1972, there was a short-lived splinter group, the National Independence Party. That was followed by the National Party, in 1975. That party was defunct two years later. But the name that the public knew was the National Front.

By 1980, things were much more serious. In the Midlands, there was a rebellion. The British Democratic Party was formed. Then Andrew Fountaine created the Constitutional Movement, which became the Nationalist Party. Then John Tyndall created the New National Front, which became the British National Party.

Since the NF’s founding, there was the tiny, and infiltrated, British Movement which was parasitic on the NF.

All of these groups damaged both the cause of nationalist unity and British Nationalism itself. Yet the odd thing is many of those splitters began talking of nationalist unity.

The National Front had split four ways. Yet further wreckers caused the rump of the NF to be split another three or four ways. The party effectively died in the 1980s.

Tyndall’s BNP limped on. Older members died. Few people were recruited. When Nick Griffin seized the leadership, the BNP began to expand. But few among the new recruits ever became proper ideological nationalists.

I had joined the NF in 1974, and I joined the BNP in the 1990s, because it appeared that British Nationalism might again be moving forward. But that party too split into numerous splinter groups.

But the important thing to realise is that most ordinary rank-and-file British Nationalists are not factional. If they see a once united party breaking up, then they simply drop out of politics altogether. That happened with both the NF and later the BNP.

Fake organisations

The Establishment had a hand in destroying both the NF and the BNP. The NF had been subjected to very serious violence since the beginning. It suffered infiltration, official harassment of various kinds, media vilification, oppressive laws, and much else.

The BNP also suffered some of those things. But it also suffered the organisation and leading individuals permanently ‘debanked’ long before Nigel Farage experienced that temporary nuisance. By then, finding printers was also a problem.

A political party that has no bank account and cannot print literature has an enormous handicap.

But the Establishment hit on a new idea also. UKIP had been founded by a Liberal, to oppose British membership of what became the European Union. A few desperate British Nationalists saw it as a substitute for a nationalist movement.

But the Establishment was wise to infiltration. UKIP constitutionally banned all former and current members of the NF and the BNP.

The State could have it both ways. The public could vote for a tame organisation that wasn’t ideologically nationalist but never officially declared that, while real nationalists were excluded.

As Farage moved from UKIP to the Brexit Party and then Reform UK, the ban on British Nationalists continued.

But Farage did not run street protests or marches. For that, the secret state needed the services of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, known as ‘Tommy Robinson.’ Martin Webster warned his subscribers about ‘Robinson.’ So too did Nick Griffin, then still the head of the BNP.

But the secret state now had a controlled opposition. UKIP and its successors for elections and Tommy Robinson for the streets.

Problems

A lot of rank-and-file nationalists were, and are, lazy. They have not been active, and they have read very little. Partly, because of the latter, they cannot tell a genuine organisation from a fake one.

Our country is threatened on multiple fronts. Our sovereignty is threatened by international organisations. Our very existence is threatened, at home, by mass immigration and a multi-racial society. Separatist groups want to split the United Kingdom apart.

But uninformed patriots hear “Stop the Boats!” and assume that is a call to end multi-racialism. But very often it is not. Anyone who criticises Islam in the UK, is assumed to be against a multi-racial society. Very often those people are not opposed to a multi-racial society.

Anyone who waves a Union Jack is assumed to be one of us. Obviously, waving a Union Jack is far preferable to waving the red flag of the Left, or the EU flag, but it is not proof of ideological integrity.

The Tories have been betraying Britain ever since 1945 but still making patriotic noises and displaying the Union Jack at their conferences.

Under Blair, Labour adopted the Red Rose, instead of the Red Flag. Starmer had the Union Jack printed on Labour election leaflets – much to the horror and protests of a very large section of his rank-and-file.

But patriotic symbols, divorced from patriotic policies and patriotic action, are a shabby confidence trick.

Some people understand that idea, when looking at the two main parties of government. But for some reason, they cannot see that principle, if the flag bearer is Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, and now Danny Tommo.

We should believe in an all-White Britain. Nigel Farage will not even stop legal immigration. (He probably won’t stop illegal immigration either.) Farage will not implement phased repatriation of settled immigrants in any meaningful numbers.

UKIP was a White party. But Reform UK is deliberately a multi-racial party, with two built-in Jewish sections. Farage is happy to accept a multi-racial society.

Tommy Robinson, Danny Tommo, and John Francis all oppose British Nationalism.

With the indigenous population now probably at about seventy percent of the whole, an aging (and dying) White population, and legal immigration at an at time high, stopping the boats is not going to make much difference, even if it ever happens.

We need to stop ALL legal immigration, and we need remigration. Ideally, that would be repatriation. But if foreigners cannot return home, they can still leave Britain. But Farage, Robinson, Tommo, or John Francis do not support that. Only Farage is ever likely to be in a position to do that, anyway.

These people are not our friends or ideological bedfellows.

What is to be done?

Both Griffin and Collett believe that the electoral route to power, for British Nationalists, is blocked by Farage. Before long, it will be impossible for any racial nationalist party to win, even in theory, because of changing demographics.

If we accept that Farage does not even intend to stop legal immigration, then on that basis, it begins to look like Nick Griffin has a point when he says we will not see significant remigration in our lifetimes. (And that is assuming that Farage actually wins power.)

Griffin does not even advocate remigration, because he sees it as a waste of time and energy. Collett does still advocate remigration.

I think we should still say we favour that solution, even if we never see it happen.

Griffin thinks all British Nationalists should join Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain. That party will not win power, but Griffin hopes that Nationalists could radicalise the big numbers inside that party, in readiness for a time when White areas will need to be made secure.

Meanwhile, Mark Collett wants Reform UK to win the next general election. Not from a stance of hero-worship of Farage, but as a strategy to destroy the Conservative Party, and possibly eventually, the Labour Party, too.

Reform will have much shallower roots than the two main parties.

I like both Griffin’s ‘entryist’ intentions towards Restore Britain AND Collett’s purely strategic support for a Reform UK election victory. But it immediately strikes me that these two ideas could be mutually exclusive.

And something else occurs to me. Sometimes revolutions take on a life of their own.

Revolution

Revolutions eat their own children. Robespierre went to the guillotine. Trotsky was assassinated. Ernst Rohm was assassinated. Those were violent times.

Farage is not well. He has had several (at least three) brushes with death. One day he will be replaced. Just perhaps, it could be by a younger, more radical man who does believe in remigration.

Of course, the Establishment is trying to ensure that Reform UK is absorbed. The inclusion of high-ranking non-Whites shows us that. So too, does the inclusion of two Jewish lobbying groups.

Elite Theorists argue that the ordinary people never change anything. But they are not forced to be completely right. Even dictators need to have popular support to rule for any length of time.

In spite of Establishment, non-White, and minority Jewish efforts, a large grassroots remigration movement might one day influence the direction of travel of Reform UK.

Both the Establishment and the people once supported British membership of the EU, but opinions change. Maybe the idea of remigration might become mainstream, in spite of Griffin’s thoughts on the matter.

Like Griffin, Collett, and all other sincere Nationalists, I am left clutching at straws.

We must continue to hope and pray and stay optimistic. Sometimes, when all looks lost something totally unexpected happens.

© Will Wright 2026. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

The BBC and the rewriting of history

The re-writing of history is another sinister development that has been growing in recent years. This is not limited to the BBC, of course, but naturally it is in the vanguard. The main focal point of this is to make the British people ashamed of being White and instil in them a huge guilt complex. Then, so the liberal elite believe, White British people will be ready to commit racial suicide en masse and very quickly on the alter of “diversity” and “inclusivity”.

Dramas

Historical dramas, which even recently the BBC were renowned for in terms of historical accuracy and authenticity, are now a joke. For example, the forthcoming series of ‘Wolf Hall’, about the relationship between King Henry VIII and his senior minister, Thomas Cromwell, would have us believe that many courtiers in the Royal Court were black. As anyone even vaguely familiar with that period of English history knows, the number of black people in the whole of Britain at that time could probably have been counted on the fingers of one hand.

History

Broadcasts that are supposed to present true history (as opposed to historical drama) are now little more than diatribes of leftist hate against White people in general and Britain in particular. Any evidence that doesn’t fit in with the left’s narrative is simply ignored.

We’ve seen this in the infamous BBC Radio broadcasts of 2020-21, ‘The Battle of Lewisham’ (in the ‘Witness to History’ series, where just one person gives their views on a historical event), and the three-part ‘Britain’s Fascist Thread’. A major feature of these programmes was the National Front march through Lewisham that took place on August 13th 1977. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000skcb.

Dozens of witnesses were interviewed and allowed to give their own particular distorted accounts of what happened that day. All of them without exception were left wing or extreme left wing. No-one from the National Front was interviewed – not even the National Activities Organiser, Martin Webster, who organised the whole event.

Ninety Three Lies and Distortions – in just three broadcasts

No less than ninety three cases of lies, distortions, and bias in those broadcasts were complained about by us at Anglo-Celtic. The BBC Executive Complaints Unit and, later, Ofcom, refused to investigate any of them.

The next step, if we had the funds, would be to apply for a court order that would force the BBC to consider our complaints properly, as required by their Charter. The BBC is cynically relying on our inability to come up with the thousands of pounds that such an action would cost.

"We don't really care if they complain." - Hugh Greene, Director-General BBC 1960-69.

The BBC’s Complaints System is a Fraud

There’s one very interesting aspect about complaining to the BBC that everyone should know about. The Corporation elevates itself to such a high status that it feels completely justified in imposing strict limits on the number of words any given complaint can contain. There are also strict time limits within which complaints have to be lodged. Making a complaint is treated as a concession and not a right.

What other organisation, public or private, purports to impose such restrictions on the public’s right to complain about it? This is all the more pertinent when the people making the complaints are invariably licence fee payers who collectively fund the BBC. The audacity of the BBC in imposing rules about how people can complain about it, the maximum length of written complaints, and the time limits within which such complaints must be received, is staggering.

At last a backlash is occurring. More and more people are refusing to pay the BBC’s exorbitant licence fee. So much so that the BBC is now facing a serious shortage of money. It is even having to reduce expenditure on the salaries of overpaid presenters, such as the infamous left wing soccer pundit, Gary Lineker, and their pension contributions.

Let’s hope the licence fee crisis blossoms into a full scale collapse of this rotten, corrupt and parasitic institution so that its outpouring of marxist poison day after day can be throttled once and for all.

Join our Campaign to Abolish the BBC by clicking here.

The Front View with Martin Webster – ‘Lewisham, August 1977’

This bombshell interview lifts the lid off the extreme left wing control of the mainstream media.

Martin Webster carries out a complete demolition of the  leftist establishment lies about what happened at Lewisham, London, on August 13th, 1977.

Share with everyone you know who wants proof about leftist lies and deceptions in the mainstream media, and register your interest in helping our Campaign to Abolish the BBC by clicking here.

A K Chesterton, pan-Europeanism, and non-White immigration

Arthur Kenneth Chesterton was a man shaped by the time and place that he was born. He was an imperialist. He was a British patriot, born on the 1st of May 1899, in Krugersdorp, in British South Africa. He was not a hater of other races – not a “racist” as today’s insistent and wrong-headed mass media would have called him. He did not actively choose to become a racialist, based on intellectual arguments. He was born when the vast majority of White Europeans, of all nationalities, naturally assumed White racial superiority.

Chesterton and Mosley

In Britain in the Thirties, AK Chesterton joined Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists for a short period of a few years, before falling out with Mosley and leaving his movement. During those few years Chesterton was responsible for about seventy percent of all BUF propaganda output. He was a talented writer and editor. He was related to the famous novelist, GK Chesterton, and his brother, the well-known journalist, Cecil Chesterton.

At the out break of the Second World War, AK Chesterton enlisted in the British Army and fought for his country, just as he had already done in the First World War. After the War, Chesterton found even greater ideological political differences with Mosley. Mosley now believed in pan-Europeanism, and used the slogan: “Europe-a nation”. But AK Chesterton founded the League of Empire Loyalists, and was firmly opposed to British government attempts to join the European Economic Community.

When the National Front was founded in 1967, AK Chesterton was its first leader. But before then he wrote The New Unhappy Lords, subtitled: “an exposure of power politics”. My copy of the book is the fourth revised edition of October 1972. Chapter 21 is: Demoralisation at Home, from page 164 to 171, it is too long to quote in full in this letter.

Supreme Treason

On page 167 AK Chesterton writes:

“The supreme treason in the British Isles, however, is the creation of a colour problem in a White nation where no such problem has existed throughout the hundreds of years of its existence. In the 1955 elections the present writer and some of his colleagues went to Bromley to challenge Harold MacMillan about this issue, which even then had assumed alarming proportions. MacMillan said that he, too, was very much concerned about the situation…”

Chesterton continues:

“The next year MacMillan became Prime Minister, with power to move and secure the passage through Parliament of measures to put an end to coloured immigration. He did nothing. While he posed and strutted on the stage of public life further hundreds of thousands of coloured people poured into the British Isles from the West Indies, from West Africa, from India and Pakistan and from many other countries, thus casting derision upon Harold Macmillan’s professed “concern”, the expression of which obviously had no meaning other than to delude the British people. Today the coloured invasion has spread throughout England, being encountered even in the remotest country villages.”

A little later, Chesterton goes on:

“The politicians, to whom votes are all-important, now began to perceive that it was necessary to take some kind of a public stand, in their propaganda if not in their actions, against the coloured invasion, and Peter Thorneycroft, a prominent member of the previous Conservative Government, spoke to a Conservative gathering of the need not only to tighten up controls but to return to the country-of-origin certain types of immigrant. Thorneycroft had suffered a spell in the political wilderness by resigning from the Government on a relatively minor matter which concerned a difference on financial policy. Why, if he felt so strongly about the creation of the colour problem, did he not resign on this major matter, affecting in perpetuity the breed of men produced in the British Isles? The answer could be that the vested interests sponsoring coloured immigration had become so strong that anybody rash enough to offer real opposition might well be committing political suicide.”

The Mongrelisation of Mankind

Chesterton concludes:

“The dominating motive may well have been not economic but political – the conspiratorial plan, everywhere being carried out, of securing the mongrelisation of mankind. More will be said about this later. What has here to be stated, with the greatest possible emphasis, is that the mixing of White and Black or Coloured people results in hordes of unhappy half-castes who feel that they belong nowhere, whose tendency is to embrace the vices of both racial stocks and not to strive after the virtues, and who must eventually, through no fault of their own, bring to an end the tremendous history of achievement which is the heritage of the European nations.”

We should notice that AK Chesterton was writing in a book first published in 1965 and revised in 1972, about a situation that he first mentions in 1955! He writes of the Conservative Party’s intention to lie about both non-White immigration itself, and its own claimed policies to remedy the situation.

When Chesterton mentions “the vested interests sponsoring coloured immigration” and their strength, he is referring to organised Jewish interests. Why do I think that? Because the main thrust of the rest of his book is about the Jewish involvement in a drive towards a world government.

The Conservative Party has repeatedly lied about immigration over many decades now. All of my lifetime. It tells the public that it will deal with this problem, when it is clear that it will not.

Who is responsible?

One local friend of mine blames the generation of ordinary Britons who are now elderly (in their eighties) for not rising up against non-White immigration. He believes that ordinary Britons should have joined, and voted for, the National Front in the 1970s. If I have understood him correctly, in pub conversations, he also blames the National Front leadership of the Seventies for failing to win political power.

In an interview with Edward Dutton online, Martin Webster blamed our country’s leadership class for not providing proper national leadership. He said that it then fell to the lower middle class, and working class, people of the National Front to lead the opposition to the invasion of our country.

I agree that the Establishment betrayed us. Were they ALL either mercenary or ideological traitors? Were they careerists, individualists, and moral cowards? Could none of them see the long-term results of massive non-White immigration?

I believe that one group of people, both in Britain and across the Western World could foresee the long-term results of non-White immigration – the organised Jewish community. I believe, along with Arthur Kenneth Chesterton, that organised Jewish groups planned all of this. Partly out of a sense of revenge against Christendom, and also in order to achieve their aim of a one-world-state, with a world government. I offer no prizes for guessing who would control that!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.
RSS
Follow by Email