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”.


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.


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

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.
Follow by Email