Unfortunately, it seems that people cannot be "told". They have to think and learn for themselves, question their own judgements, follow through various logics and follow statistics to their conclusion and then, at the pinnacle, decide to care enough to wear the badge of nationalism and stand apart from the crowd.

Was it in a film, where somebody says "You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!".

That is where we are still at with the mass of society.

Racial crime figures, demographic forecasts, the way finance operates, the overweighting of Jewish names acting against our interests and behind various ideologies, whatever it might be..... most people are not capable of even listening, never mind grasping the concepts or why they should care about it.

Nope, sadly, people seem to have to "snap out of it" themselves, they need to believe they have come to their own conclusions. The trouble is, they are saturated with news and views that bend their mind away from our opinions and causes, which makes this message of ours hard to break through into their consciousness.

Via PC they have lost a great deal of ability to think independently about a whole range of concepts because they often lack the vocabulary to think.

Given some of the garbage churned out of the education system - not all, but many - they are hardly your next Aldous Huxley's or cerebral Enoch Powell's. The majority of politicians and figures we call the ruling elite are intellectual pygmies compared to such people, and the populace seem more docile than ever before. What passes for commentary on many of our sites might as well be written in Martian for these people.

The already discorded, the already converted, the 5% or so of people out there capable of independent thought might find the time to figure us out and think about what we are saying, but when it comes to the masses, I am afraid it is looking like a lot cause.

Perhaps the Communists had it right, in that only 5% are capable of dissenting thoughts and actions that are capable of overthrowing a society. The rest go along with the herd, no matter who is shepherd, even if it is begrudgingly or in ambivalence.

We have some degree of chance with the BNP minded (what sadly passes as 'traditional nationalism' in some quarters these days), we have some degree of chance with the UKIPers to head our way in the future, we have some degree of chance with some of the EDL (but certainly not all, as they are not nationalists), we have many on the "New Right", and maybe, I don't know, some 30% or so of what is left of the real British people could be convinced towards some of our merits.

Apologies to Arthur Kemp if I am mistaking some of his assertions, but I suppose I now share his view (from the outlay of Nova Europa) that, unfortunately, we cannot save the entirety of the masses or reach the masses and convert them to our cause any more.

We may have to cut our cloth to reach those who are reachable (and likely to be winnable), whilst working to our own agenda and sidestepping the theatrics (and such) that currently tend to lead us by the nose.

Perhaps it is time to set our own agenda, lay out our own incremental goals, pay less attention as to what is being done to us in preference to looking out for our own and securing a future. Fifty articles about the Romanians and Bulgarians and thousands of comments are not going to stop them coming. We have little to no control over that. Our energies are often spent trying to diffuse and discuss world events we have no levers of control on.

Hopefully "drdeeselixir" (above) is right in that the majority of this societal control and sheep-ness is an illusion put in place to make us think we are all alone and that their view is the majority.

It is surprising how many people I randomly meet who are sick of the way things are going and who are relieved to speak openly about it with somebody. There is a lot of animosity out there to what is being done. It just never seems to be focussed or directed properly. People just nibble at bits of it. They can take some things you say and feel strongly about it, but reject other things.

There is an article somewhere else about how various newspaper and blog comment sections are going to be further moderated and made more difficult to be anonymous - because of what they call "bile" and "hate speech" in their comment sections (which they describe as "the wild west").

This is a worrying development, but it does show that more and more people are questioning the articles, dissenting from the media bubble, being hostile to perceived normalities.

Some people do talk a lot of useless garbage, or troll, or are just plain nasty with imbecilic statements, but maybe what they really fear is the tide turning and their official narrative being drowned out with dissenting ones. When this happens to a major degree, like with the Asch conformity test, WE become the shapers of opinion and we direct the nature of articles and debate.

So maybe their perceived control over us is wafer thin, an illusion.

However, I am not going to pin my hopes on that.

Regarding the BBC, I found this article by chance earlier (whilst looking for another document): http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/5081/full. I thought it was quite good.

What I was actually looking for was a link to this: http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/pdf/bbc_im... - which is an expose of how the BBC are reinforcing their agenda on immigration.

The article above, by Albion, mentions NLP. Yet there is also something called "Nudging" that is on the increase. The government even has a "Behavioural Insights Team" unit - or "nudge unit" - which seeks to use psychology to manipulate the choices and attitudes of the British people.

Some of the purported goals are no doubt worthy and hard to argue against - like healthier diets, stopping smoking, organ donation and that kind of thing - but it is manipulation nonetheless, and blurring the lines of the relationship between genuine freedom and the state given freedom.

Nor does it necessarily stop with such 'health' matters. Debates on this in America have already touched on the possibilities of using it to aid "social cohesion" in what they term the "tattered social fabric" that's emerging. What they can actually do with this tool, I have no idea.

They are using nudging here in the UK for matters of persuading people to pay their taxes and to pay them on time. It has proved highly successful. In some ways it is very helpful and, in theory, saving the country £billions.

But could this kind of thing be further used to mould people into the idea of paying even higher taxes and to being more compliant in all sorts of ways?

Could it be used to promote more mixed partnerships and to be more accepting of "change" and "togetherness" - (as pushed in the standpoint article above about the BBC coverage of Lee Rigby?)....

I don't know, for I am clearly not an expert nor a psychologist. But the prospect of further losing our own free minds (and the minds of the wider populace) to such psychological warfare is something I find deeply disturbing.

No prizes for guessing the background of the leading lights of 'nudging'......but they are no longer alone.

It is now growing of its own accord, particularly within the British government, whether it be Labour or Conservative, as they have both subscribed to and have shown interest in using the processes.

When you combine the sway of finance, the media, NLP, nudging, NGOs, etc....... well, I think it must be understood that the cause we are fighting is, on our part, still in the stone-age in comparison to theirs.

I don't even know quite what I mean by this (in terms of what I would suggest we do about it), but surely we need to radically overhaul how we operate and how to shield people from these tools of theirs.

We often call people out there sheep, but is it all that surprising given the constant bombardment?

It is a testament to the human spirit (and inbuilt rebelliousness of our people) that some of us are resisting the future direction of the world which they, the opposition, are trying to shape.

Despite all the billions of dollars of media saturation, despite NLP and Nudging, we still get the feeling that something is deeply wrong with what is happening.

The power and effort being waged against us is immense, yet (albeit squashed at the moment) some natural urges and instincts do remain in some of us (and many other people out there) to various degrees. That they have to resort to all this pressure is a sign of their weakness and of it being anti-human nature.

The trouble is, our opponents are well financed and they are even using sophisticated techniques that are altering our brain patterns. What have we got? Sadly, we are not currently in the position of competing on that level.

Maybe we should apply for jobs at the border forces (farces?), burrow into immigration charities as disrupter and blockers, or otherwise try and shut them down,like trying to bring down immigration lawyer fees that are coming out of our taxes.....

There are a lot of people getting extremely rich and making a living by making our situation worse. Cut off those supplies of money and they will, in turn, be cut off too.

I really don't know what the answer is, but it is obvious that continuing on with the exact same things we have been doing for the last 40 years is not really an option that is going to work.

When it comes to the wider country, you are right - a beheading on the streets of London will still not make people stand up.

They have already been conditioned to reject any remote senses of self preservation and often climb over themselves to be the opposite, like some kind of Stockholm syndrome. They are conditioned to believe that it will help bring people closer together, that lessons will be learnt, that we are all going to be one happy family, that it will make the 'nation stronger' - if only these 'crazed' Islamics were detained or whatever sooner. It is delusional, but has somehow become the staple diet of the grieving process whenever the nasty aspects of modern Britain bubble to the surface.

People often say to me "worse is better" - as though some event will finally make the British rise up. I simply reply that we have already lost about five major cities, that we are in financial ruin and living on borrowed time, that our children are being groomed and raped, our people stabbed, shot, murdered, locked up for their views, carted off for "re-education" and diversity training, discriminated in job applications and turned into mindless cattle. How bad does it have to get?!

I think people will put up with much more yet before their minds are focussed. By then though, I suspect it will be too late.

That leaves us with the only option of having to get on with doing what we can do, trying to stop being overwhelmed with the world and the problems of the world and focussing instead on salvaging something from the wreckage and looking forward to positive moves on that score.

It is a tightrope between understanding the grieving processes and the general understanding of the parents, and that of despairing at not only their naivety but their foolishness in using such a horrific event in some bizarre call for "coming together" to beat the "hate" etc.

I think you're right to be disappointed at the garbage the parents seem to be coming out with in the Mail. The only way I can excuse it is that they're trying to make sure that, in their own minds, Lee's horrific death (and his former choice of career) has not been a mistake or in vain. I can appreciate that need.

However, when cutting back to the sheer bluntness of it, some of it is of course garbage.

For example:

"‘Lee died serving his country, doing what he believed in. Serving the country to preserve our way of life, our freedom of speech and the opportunity to be able to walk the streets in peace and say what you feel because that’s what our country is all about.’"

Wrong on all counts. He did not die serving his country. Not only was he not in action at the time (and in fact on British streets!) - but he was not really serving the interests of the country. It was not making this country safer, far from it.

He was, unfortunately serving the interests of warmongers and profiteers whilst the very same government that sent him on duties in the first place were allowing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to enter Britain - including wanted war criminals from Africa.

He did not die for freedom of speech. The Taliban were not ever a threat to our freedom of speech here in Britain. Nor was one of the reasons for the wars in the middle east about freedom of speech, either to save our own or provide it to others. That was not a pre-context for the war.

Also, they should bear in mind that we don't actually have free speech in Britain any more.

People are regularly arrested on public transport, on twitter and facebook for what they have said - and some on the "far right" have been put in prison for merely writing and distributing "heretical" material. If Lee was fighting for free speech, he should have been attacking our own establishment and the liberal-left, not Afghanis in the mountains.

(Even 81 year olds have been removed from political party conferences for shouting "rubbish" at their lies, ironically under the 'Terrorism Act').

The people who are "dividing the community" are the multiracialists and multiculturalists who've fostered there being "different communities" to begin with, and yes, foreign policy has got something to do with it.

Many on the "counter-jihad" side of this fight will take issue with that, but they should listen carefully to what the killers said on the day and what they said in their court cases. Personally, I could understand their messages about our leaders and our soldiers just being their pawns.

It goes without saying that I did not agree with what they did, but where the parents are mistaken is where they want to just blame "extremists" for what happened when they should be actually looking at what is going on in this world and looking at the actions of this country and our politicians who are not only wreaking havoc around the world but turning this country into a toilet which is supplanting the likes of poor Lee and all his kith and kin.

Is that what he was fighting for? So that this country can be ethnically cleansed and turned into a toilet? Hardly.

The parents though, will not want to understand this. They want to think of their much loved son Lee as being on the right side, fighting the good fight, and to remember him as best they can - upholding of what they perceive he was fighting for.

That does not stop it getting on my wick when we hear about how "it is nothing to do with Islam" and have to listen to spokesmen from the Quilliam Foundation and Ramadan Foundation and whatever else telling us that it has nothing to do with Islam and that it just some random event sparked by a handful of 'fanatics' and that we need to encourage more "community cohesion" to make Muslims "more part of British life".

All this "coming together" stuff in terms of this aspect is fairytale land. It is never going to happen. There are only winners and losers.

I have not studied the court case. I have listened to some clips of the defence and some clips of the poor mother of Lee having to deal with her loss and about what was revealed in court about the details of his death.

The defence had some valid points about the turf war going on and about vested interests at play, but at the same time, whilst not being one for weeping, I did actually have some water welling in my eyes when listening to the mother on the radio on day of the verdict. It was truly horrible and horrific and I'm sure the parents are doing their best to get through a bad time, one which I find hard to imagine having to cope with.

Some might say it was stereotypical of 'lazy blacks', I suppose.

Just like with James Bond (and other characters or stories created by Whites), they did not create their own, have not created or perpetuated their own, so in (again) typical fashion, they just want to steal the property of others and take it on as being as their own whilst they repopulate our countries.

I suppose we all know why the original black author was not the focus of the heat. After all, in essence, she was stating that she was uncomfortable and that she had issues with a White "Santa" whilst growing up as a black child.

What is she, some sort of racist? Of course not, for as we know, only White people can be racist - and it is our apparent duty to hand over all of our myths, stories, traditions, heritage and lands over to blacks without ever daring to stand up for ourselves.

No surprise at the opinions of the Huffington Post author either, given the paper's reputation and the heritage of the author. I do not know what he is whining about - unless he is "insensitive" and "intolerant" to the religions and practices of others. He wants consideration, but refuses to give any himself. But hey, hypocrisy is their general forte, so why should he stop now?

This nonsense of his about "Santa" is particularly ironic when at the end of the day "Santa" has nothing to do with Christmas and the Bible, but is instead traditionally known as a tale of generosity to the poor in Europe - which has, over the years, been turned into a massive commercial effort that rakes in £Billions or £Trillions of pounds every year.......which trickles upwards to the people at the top.....who are, you guessed it, often the same heritage as the author of the article! (Also part of globalisation too, with market forces).

As a bonus for them, the Christian faith they sought to destroy has been virtually overtaken in Britain by this "Santa" figure and the commerce it drives. If they can make him Black in an effort to continue the revenue (when Whites are in a minority), they will do, particularly if it means being snide against Whites as they do it. As ever, they use blacks to do thier manual labour of pushing a discourse.

Speaking of which, I think many notorious black figures in history, such as Rosa Parks, and even the wider slave depiction that everyone has been conditioned to think as being the sole property of blacks, should be made white. After all, "it does not matter" how it has always been seen, and Whites have actually been slaves. I expect the author at the Huffington Post to get straight on it...... oh no, I actually don't.

I was only saying last week that I had read a little snippet in the Mail that the IMF were part of this deal - and that the "conditions" they were after were said to be disagreeable for future of the Ukraine, by the Ukrainian Prime Minister. Blink and you would have missed it though. There seems to be more about it in the press now.

Meddling in matters of gas supply subsidies/availabilities, being in hock to the IMF, the World Bank, the ECB, no doubt being quietly stripped of your sovereignty through no longer having real control over your economic and infrastructural affairs....... well, I suspect it *should* be ringing some alarm bells for the Ukrainians.

I have grown cynical enough to believe that much of this 'uprising' and rioting has been in the making for years, with placemen and various chess pieces being put into play to ensure a win for the usual suspects. They have had practice after all, in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and many other places - some of which were exposed once on Russia Today News to have had ties with offshoots of the CIA. I don't know why they would not be doing the same in Europe.

I do not know enough about the Ukraine or what is really going on though, to be honest - but when those kinds of groups are involved, it cannot be good news for the people there. Iceland seemed to have the right idea when it comes to dealing with these kinds of pressures by institutions.

There are times when I am thankful that I have ditched a good 90% of my television watching.

This is one of those times, for I can imagine the kind of over-emotional guff being pushed out and a whole raft of ignorant whites and black race hustlers being wheeled out to bow and beg and scrape over this puppet of a man that was in all likelihood funded, financed and used by the usual suspects.

There is a controversial article over at Western Spring about this man, which may well ruffle some of our feathers, but I suppose it raises a good point and I can actually appreciate the message being given. I was only saying this morning to somebody, albeit very tongue in cheek, that I look forward to the same kind of coverage when notorious nationalist leaders in Britain come to the end of their lives.

I am sure the BBC and the rest will be queuing up to sing the praises of our nationalist cause and how the said persons fought a noble cause against unwanted intrusion into their land. Our lot, so far, have not been terrorists, not set people alight inside stacks of car tyres, or otherwise brutally murdered hundreds if not thousands of people - so there should be no reason for the media not to sing the praises of deceased white nationalists in Britain who are looking out for their own people and interests.

Sorry, I just slipped into the twilight zone there.

As suggested on the Western Spring article, I suppose I also think that Apartheid was wrong. However, it was only wrong because they should not have allowed the two peoples to share the same space and same facilities in the first place. That was their fatal mistake, for it was never going to viable.

No doubt the one-sided coverage will go on for weeks. Then there will be documentaries about it. I also believe there is a film due out round about now. I bet Radio Four staff are wearing black armbands and calls will be made to erect his statue on one of those London plinths.

Somebody give me a nudge when it is safe to come out of hibernation from the onslaught of Mandela-mania.

I simply haven't the time and patience to keep up with everything going on these days, but the other week I saw some usual Daily Mail screed about Ukraine and Russia. Whilst they were not pro-EU, they were hardly singing the praises of Russia either. The comments, as usual, were full of scaremongering about Russia and their intentions, or remarks about Putin's criminal ties.

However, there was one little paragraph that caught my eye in relation to the snubbed EU deal. It jumped out at me, but as I say, I have not investigated it and I have not heard it discussed on various radio and TV debates I have seen about the Ukraine and this issue.

Basically, the paragraph mentioned that the IMF was part of the deal - that certain financial ties and contracts were bound up in it all, relating to loans to "bail them out" as a country and so on. The Ukranian Prime Minister cited these conditions as part of why it was intolerable and that he could not sign into it.

I do not know the financial situation in the Ukraine, but it would not surprise me in the slightest if the IMF sought to impose usury on loans, force defaults on repayments, asset strip the silver and gold reserves as payment, and all the rest of it. I may just be being paranoid, but I put nothing past the globalists in their drive.

If they can get the EU expanded, decimate another country, take control (effectively) of their monetary - and therefore political - sovereignty, they will do. Like with Labour, they never operated on a one-goal basis. They liked a "Win-Win-Win" situation that fulfilled more than one objective at one time. It may be hiding the stuff that is going on in Israel, furthering the agenda of the EU globalism, and sucking the wealth out of yet another nation's real assets.

The populace of the Ukraine will probably have no idea about all of this, much like our wider society. They see a chance to have their nation boosted from the rest of the EU nation states and may, naively, think that they will be asserting their "European" identity by wanting to be associated with Europe rather than Russia. I really do not know. Myself, I think they are better off with Russia.

Needless to say, my comment to the Mail about the possible IMF role being a factor in the declining of the offer to join the EU was not published. No change there then.

Corsham has been dedicated to the cause and this site for longer than I can remember, earning a reputation from me as some sort of comment moderating cyborg - that sleeps with one eye closed (and passes comments though with the other).

What a laborious, time consuming and thankless task it must be too. I know I couldn't have done it (or been conscientious enough to stick with it) for so long, especially if I had such a health condition to deal with too. (Maybe in the future, people ought to bear in mind that the quality of comments should perhaps come before frequency?).

Shall I take it that Corsham is still going to be manning the stations at Paltalk from time to time? I keep meaning to pop in there, but with one thing and another I find tend to less time and inclination after a long days work these days.

I can understand it if Corsham stepped back a bit from that a bit too in order to find a different kind of life that is more suited to his health and quality of the future, but it would not be the same without him in place somewhere from time to time!

A few of us who have been in it a long time are seeing dark times ahead and pulling back from our dedication for one reason and another (not in a forced way like CC!) but I suppose we should also remember that the darkest hours are usually just before the dawn of a new day.

Things cannot carry on as they are forever. What actually manifests in the new day has yet to be seen, but I think anybody with any sense will appreciate that the present (and corrupt) mechanisms and values prevalent over us will not be able to continue forever. They have had their reign, their revolution. It is getting stale, tired, unstable - and ripe for a new broom. Let us hope it is a broom in our favour!

Use the time away from moderating comments well CC.

Well, well done to Roger for speaking out.........but where have you been for the last 50 years Roger?

Why is it the Poles that seem to have suddenly sparked your ire, and not the hordes of Pakistanis, Indians, Blacks, Chinese, Filipino, Turks, and everybody else in the last 50+ years? So you were happy to watch the nation go racially and culturally down the toilet, as long as "your mates" in the "working class" were not directly pushed out of a job?

Labour has a lot to answer for for their recent devastation-level rates of immigration - but this former Labour supporter seems to have only been vocal about Labour's immigration policy in recent years. What about their track record, Roger? Anything to say about that?

Anyway, I will try and not be too harsh. He might be okay.

He seems to be speaking up about something now, particularly being against immigration and the EU of late.

We often moan about celebrities who are happy to advocate immigration and the kind of disgusting society and ethics that are on the march in Britain, so I suppose it is welcome to see people crawl out of the woodwork and start saying a bit of something at last.

I do not know much about The Who or Roger, but from what little there is on Wikipedia, back in the day ....

"....The other members of the Who expelled Daltrey from the band in late 1965 after he beat up drummer Keith Moon for supplying drugs to Townshend and Entwistle"....and "Daltrey claims to have never tried hard drugs and unlike his band mates, has stayed straight and free from addiction problems".

That certainly makes a refreshing change, and good on him for "kicking off" back in '65 - and good on him for staying away from the lure and promotion of drug abuse within pop music.

When it comes to the blame, I tend to share his views, in that to blame the immigrant is like to put the cart in front of the horse. If the government, state, pro-immigration lobbies and vested interests had not allowed such immigration to take place since the 1940's - particularly in recent years - the said immigrants causing problems, whether it be in jobs/wages or being pickpockets and rapists, would not even be here......and would not be voting for parties like Labour and Lib Dems that are the softest on all their needs and interests.