Nigel Farage
4,132 words
Opinion polls show that the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is on target to win the most UK seats in the European elections that are due to take place on the May 22, 2014.[1]
The party, originally named the Anti-Federalist League, was founded in 1991 in a political landscape far different than that of today. Demographically the non-white population of England and Wales in 1991 numbered about 7%[2] of the population. The party had nothing important to say about immigration campaigning on the single issue of securing Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. It has over time evolved into a populist party that is anti-immigrant, anti-elitist, and anti-interventionist. A thorough analysis of the party and its implications for pro-whites is long overdue.
Intellectually the party drew its original ideology from the Bruges Group[3], a conservative think-tank founded in 1989 opposed to the EU’s agenda of further political and economic centralization in Europe. UKIP’s first leader Alan Sked was a former Liberal Party activist and lecturer of European Studies at the London School of Economics. Given his impeccably leftist academic background Sked never conceived UKIP as a vehicle for identity politics and focused it solely on campaigning for withdrawal from European Union. At the slightest whiff of emerging populism and anti-immigrant sentiment he resigned, accusing it of being racist and having been infiltrated by the far Right.
Sked’s own political exit was symbolic of the ideological sea change that took place in the euroskeptic movement. Whereas in the 1980s it was the Left who rejected membership of the European Union seeing it as a continuation of Thatcherite policies of free trade and privatization, by the 1990s the mainstream Left had come to embrace neo-liberalism and globalization and saw in the EU an institution which could liquidate national sovereignty and overcome the remaining barriers against globalism.
For much of the 1990s UKIP was overshadowed by the Referendum Party, which was run by James Goldsmith, a scion of a great Jewish merchant banking dynasty. In a textbook example of how one wealthy Jew with deep pockets can have a decisive impact upon the political process, he personally bankrolled the party to the tune of £30 million, a colossal sum given the limited amount of money allowed to be spent on political campaigns in the UK.[4] His party won 810,000 votes at the 1997 General Election, but despite winning no seats it forced the 3 major parties to agree to a referendum on joining the single European currency. Given the British peoples’ consistent hostility to the single currency, which has only deepened following the financial crisis of 2008, none have dared to hold the referendum, and all talk of Britain’s entry into the single currency has been quietly dropped.
The single currency opt-out points to the fact that regardless of the rhetoric of the euroskeptics the European Union is not the equivalent of the US federal government. The European President, whoever he is,[5] has no powers to raise a federal army to coerce rebel states into compliance. Power ultimately lies with individual states. European directives and court judgments can be and are ignored with impunity. Despite the allegations of the euroskeptics that being a member means obeying the rules, the United Kingdom has opted out of the Euro, obtained a rebate on monetary contributions to the European Union, and refused to help bail out Greece in order to save the Euro. It is also at present zealously protecting the interests of the City of London against a proposal by the European Commission to tax financial transactions.[6]
The British political elites, like their European brethren, is selective in the laws and regulations that they will allow the European Union to impose on their country. They will ignore some and impose others. The institutions of the European Union are far less accountable to public opinion than national parliaments (which are hardly paragons of democratic accountability themselves[7]). Legislative initiatives originate with the European Commission, in which each member state appoints an unelected commissioner. The legislation is then voted upon by an elected European Parliament made up of 28 member states, the majority of whom speak different languages. In this Tower of Babel it is impossible for any kind of consensus to be achieved at the European level. To give an example, the Germans are at odds with Greeks on the subject of the bailout of Greece. The German taxpayers are angry that they are forced to bail out Greek debtors, while Greeks are no doubt angry their public services are being seized as collateral for the benefit of German banks.
The unaccountability of the EU’s institutions is a beneficial tool for carrying out the agenda of the European political and economic elite. By referring policy making to the international level via the EU, laws can be passed without debate, often in defiance of national public opinion. Since the law is perceived to be imposed externally through the EU there is little possibility that individual political parties acting within the anti-white mainstream will find the kind of resistance they would if they tried to push similar legislation through their native parliaments. It is not surprising that the political class use the European Union to weaken the remaining restrictions on mass immigration and economic globalization.
EU citizens can move and trade freely inside the European Union. This tended to be not much of a problem when the European Union was confined to Western Europe. However, since 2004 the European Union has been enlarged to include the former communist countries of Eastern Europe. This has meant, firstly the outsourcing of Western factories to the East and secondly a massive migration wave as Eastern Europeans flock West. The majority of EU member states including Germany and France, kept their working restrictions for almost a decade, while the British along with the Irish and Swedish political classes decided it was imperative to obey the EU with the result that in only 10 years 446,000 Poles moved to the UK.[8]
The reason Poles moved to the UK are familiar: vastly higher wages than they could expect to earn in their own countries. Studies have shown that Polish families are able to increase their living standard by as much as four times by moving to the UK, and since 2014 families from Romania and Bulgaria can increase their incomes by eight and nine times respectively by taking a job at the minimum wage in the UK.[9] Although Americans visiting the UK might be pleasantly surprised when they visit cities like London and Edinburgh and find that much of the hotel and bar staff who serve them are young whites hailing from Eastern Europe, it is important to remember that this white migration wave — which at its highest point in 2007 represented 1 in 5 legal immigrants — is not a substitution for non-white immigration but is on top of non-white immigration, which still represents two thirds of the legal inflow.[10] The depressive affect on wages, the strain on public services, and the displacement of the native working class is far greater than it would otherwise be even if the long term impact on British genetic interests is far less.
The other great impact the EU has upon migration is on the utility of European-level human rights and asylum laws. Since year 0 (or 1997 to non-Labour supporters) the New Labour government began a campaign to “rub the Right’s noses in diversity” and flood the country with migrants by whatever means in order to dissolve the people and elect a new one more subservient to a Leftist international ruling class. Since this secret policy would lead to a massive fallout with Labour’s white traditional working-class base, the policy was largely carried out by stealth. Rather than open the borders by passing a law through Parliament, opting into various EU treaties on asylum and human rights made the deportation of illegal immigrants a legal nightmare, since whenever an illegal immigrant is discovered by the authorities the illegal immigrant can claim asylum and be protected from deportation.[11]
A full investigation published only recently showed that between 1997 and 2010, out of the 660,000 applications for asylum that were made, 59% were made only when the illegal immigrant was detected in the UK by the authorities. Nearly 77% of original claimants are still in the UK even though less than a third were actually granted asylum.[12] While many qualifying for asylum come from failed states such as Afghanistan and Iraq, these “refugees” did not stop at the first safe country or even the first European country but took advantage of the EU’s abolition of borders between member states to travel across the entire European continent before finally arriving in the United Kingdom. The experience of the typical asylum seekers journey to the UK is dramatized in Derek Turner’s excellent novel Sea Changes.
While the European Union has always been held in low regard by the British public it has never been the top issue of concern for voters, for which the economy, public services, and immigration remain the most important issues. Many of the original predictions of UKIP have not come to pass. Britain has not been dragged into the single currency, there is no European Army, and Britain has not been forced to bail out countries like Greece in order to save the eurozone. Some of this is, no doubt, due to the fear of mainstream parties that their base would defect to UKIP if they carried through these measures. Other predictions like the prospect of a European Army simply reflect the narrow pre-occupation of euroskepticism, which fails to conceive that the political elites rely on other institutions such as NATO, the UN, and WTO to also undermine national sovereignty.
While UKIP had made faint noises against mass immigration in the past, until recently it was completely eclipsed in the media by the BNP on this issue, which went after the BNP’s explicitly pro-white policies like a bull charging a red rag. The media mantra was that people should vote for any party other than the BNP, and UKIP was built up as a respectable alternative for the anti-immigrant vote. The BNP argued that UKIP was a merely a state-sponsored safety valve to draw support away from them. There is plentiful evidence to suggest that the political class have deemed it expedient to boost the profile of UKIP from time to time in order to deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity, which under Nick Griffin had achieved a level of success in local county council elections and threatened to breakthrough at the European elections.
The most significant incidence of this happened in the 2004 European Elections when UKIP, perceived as only a fringe single-issue party and with no presence at the local county councils received a barrage of favorable media publicity, which in hindsight seems to have run according to a pre-planned script. Robert Kilroy Silk, a famous presenter, was fired by the BBC after 18 years of presenting his daytime talk show named Kilroy when his anti-Islamic article, originally published on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in April 2003, was republished, ostensibly by accident, almost a year later in January 2004 by the Daily Express. The official story that we are expected to swallow is that Kilroy’s secretary sent an old article to the paper by accident and that the editor of a major newspaper could not see from the tone and content of the article that the article had been published before.[13]
Kilroy’s views, which were once acceptable in drumming up support for an Israeli proxy-war in the Middle East, were 9 months later deemed racist and therefore beyond the pale. This household name then joined UKIP in time for the 2004 European Election campaign, which was carefully scripted by Max Clifford, a prominent media consultant and senior member of the political class, who used high profile celebrity defections, which included the curiously a-political actress Joan Collins, in order to weave a triumphalist narrative of UKIP success. This boost increased UKIP’s total MEPs from 3 to 12 and buried the BNP’s own campaign which failed to win a single seat. [14]
Kilroy was then instrumental in engineering a bitter civil war in UKIP to insure the party could not capitalize on its European success at the general election. The political class may have viewed UKIP as an expedient safety valve, but its continued high profile might legitimate certain undesirable ideas. Kilroy, goaded on by the media, challenged the uncharismatic Roger Knapman for leadership of the party. Having failed in his leadership bid, he resigned from UKIP, but not before founding a new party and encouraging elected UKIP representatives to defect to his new party. Like many bastard parties spawned by factional in-fighting this party quickly sank into obscurity and later disbanded. Unsurprisingly, in such disarray UKIP failed to make any significant break through at the 2005 general election, polling 618,000 votes, 2.3% of total votes cast.[15]
Between 2005 and 2010, UKIP largely coasted along in the shadows of the BNP, whose mounting successes at local county council elections made it a rising star in British politics and impossible for the anti-white elites to ignore. In the 2009 European Elections the BNP won 2 MEPs, and UKIP increased their vote share by only 0.3%, gaining 1 more MEP for a total of 13. During this period Nigel Farage quietly emerged as the undisputed leader of UKIP. A public school boy, former commodities trader in the City of London, and enthusiastic admirer of Margaret Thatcher, he is an unlikely man of the people.[16] Nevertheless he is a charismatic politician and has a natural talent for dealing with the media, so much so that he has managed to craft an image of ordinariness and someone who does not take his job too seriously. Laughing off your opponents as humorless prima donnas is useful protection when these neo-puritans are forever conspiring to paint the scarlet letter “R” on your back.[17]
Farage needs all the protection he can get as under his leadership he has realigned it as a populist anti-immigrant, anti-interventionist, and anti-establishment party. Aside from the collapse in BNP support, which previously split the dissident Right vote, UKIP’s recent surge in the polls — winning 147 council seats in 2013 and coming 1,771 votes short of winning the Eastleigh by-election — is due to its new emphasis of campaigning against mass immigration. The fact that a significant number of these recent migrants are white allows UKIP to plausibly deny that their opposition to migration is motivated by race, even though the majority of the immigrants who would be restricted by their points-based migration policy are non-white.[18]
David Cameron has tried to stem UKIP’s tidal surge by making a campaign pledge to hold a referendum on EU membership after the General Election in 2015. However, given he has broke his promise of a referendum on previous EU treaties, nobody cares, certainly not UKIP’s white working class supporters. It is ironic that UKIP draws a great deal of its support from the working class, given that it remains an unrepentant Thatcherite party, committed to free trade, low taxes, low regulations, privatization, and de-unionization. The activists of UKIP make up two broad categories, the elderly Thatcherites who used to form the Right-wing of the conservative party, and a small contingent of young libertarians.
Given the American libertarian movement enthusiastically embraces open borders and mass migration one might expect the UK libertarian movement adopts the same tone. This is not the case. Whereas in the US, “paleo-libertarianism” disappeared in the 1990s, in the UK this wing is still thriving. As one example, Sean Gabb, the director of the UK-based Libertarian Alliance, opposes mass immigration and has written articles for Taki’s Magazine and Alternative Right rubbing shoulders with men like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor. This difference is partly explained due to the massive amount of money circulating in the American movement, which has raised up a leadership cadre dependent upon the patronage of plutocrats like William Volker and the Koch brothers. In the UK there is little co-option, because there is little money to co-opt with, with the result that English libertarians are more independent minded.
Furthermore, there is a greater esteem for the works of traditional (read non-Jewish) classical liberalism. The UK Libertarian Alliance was founded with the aim of resurrecting the ideas of men like Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill. The result is that a sizable proportion of English libertarians view mass immigration negatively and advocate restrictions in order to stop low-skilled migrants placing additional burdens on taxpayers through the welfare state and to prevent the state using the excuse of a Balkanized society to erect a police state. UKIP’s policy, which insists on strict point-based immigration to allow in a small number of highly skilled immigrants, is in alignment with these views. Sometimes the tension between abstract libertarianism and populist social conservatism can cause friction, as shown over the sacking last year of the UKIP youth leader for expressing his support over gay marriage. When it comes to policy, it is clear that, at least for now, populism trumps abstract libertarian principle.[19]
On matters of identity Farage manages to steer UKIP up to the very edge of the Overton window but no farther.[20] He presents the party as non-racist, refuses to accept ex-BNP activists as members, and is alleged to have turned over its membership list to Searchlight (the UK’s equivalent of the SPLC) in order to root out any known nationalists.[21] UKIP’s policy of throwing anyone to the Right of them under the bus has come home to roost with the demise of the BNP, for the anti-fascists and anti-white media have simply turned their campaign of vilification and intimidation towards UKIP.
In the past year stories of actual and suggested persecutions of BNP members have been replaced with familiar stories focusing on UKIP members. It has been reported that Rotherham Social Services removed foster children from a couple for being UKIP members.[22] (Rotherham social services evidently believes that the risk of being sexually abused by predatory Asian gangs in their care home system is preferable than being brought up by racists.[23]) In Edinburgh, Farage was mobbed by anti-racist protestors and had to be escorted out of the city by the police in an incident that visibly shook him.[24]
Given that Farage himself rarely makes a misstep in his dealing with the media and his own positions on immigration reflect the views of conservative newspapers and the majority of the British public, the anti-whites have decided to attack individual party members and imply guilt by association. The test case took place in August 2013 when Godfrey Bloom, who had been an MEP for UKIP since 2004 delivered a speech to party members arguing that Britain should not send foreign aid to “Bongo Bongo land,” where it would be spent on “Ray-Ban sunglasses, apartments in Paris, and Ferraris.” Despite accurately summarizing where British foreign aid to Africa actually goes, the media seized on this “sound bite” to engineer a scandal about racism in UKIP and invited Farage to force Bloom’s resignation.
Initially Farage refused to play the game and let the media storm pass without taking action. However, the media tested his nerve again at the UKIP annual conference when Bloom delivered a colorful joke when he referred to his female audience members as “sluts.” The media engineered another scandal and again invited Farage to sack the long standing MEP. This time, however, Farage lost his nerve and sacked him.[25]
By sacking such a high profile member of UKIP, Farage — far from making the smear campaigns against UKIP go away — merely encouraged them. The attacks are formulaic: the media scrutinizes blogs, social media, and speeches of every member, however marginal, for a few words that they can raise as a sound bite to react to in feigned outrage. The scandal will run until Farage agrees to exorcise the demon from his ranks. The following week the media discovers another sound bite and starts the process of outrage followed by exorcism once again. These scandals have increased in frequency as the election date draws near. Its aim is to stigmatize UKIP as racists and keep UKIP’s support quarantined to the white working class and prevent the party making significant inroads into the middle class. As the campaign of vilification heats up, potential UKIP activists will be asking themselves whether it is worth the stigma, especially when their own leaders have demonstrated repeatedly that they will leave them twisting in the wind if and when the media decides to move against them personally.
The anti-whites’ containment strategy appears to be working. Polling evidence suggests that 27% of Britons believe that UKIP has racist views and another 37% believe that while the party itself is not racist it harbors individuals with racist views.[26] Farage has even bowed to the media narrative and paraded his handful of non-white candidates before them in a vain attempt to prove UKIP’s anti-racist credentials.[27] Unsurprisingly this has had little success in dissipating the smears.
Proportional representation means that UKIP will win big in the European Elections. However, it remains to be seen how much of this vote will translate to the general election in 2015, which operates on a first past the post basis. If UKIP can pass the credibility threshold and start wining seats in the House of Commons it could exert considerable pressure on the mainstream parties to close the open door to the Third World.
Britain is bleeding profusely from the open wound of mass non-white immigration. UKIP may be able to apply a tourniquet to stem the bleeding by restricting immigration and thereby stabilize the patient long enough to get him to a hospital. This is a positive step. A timely intervention might avoid preventable evils later, but without invasive surgery of the kind that UKIP is unable and unwilling to deliver the patient is doomed to die at a later date. The number of non-whites already in Britain means that even if all immigration were stopped tomorrow, their youth and fertility would just delays the date that native whites are expected to become minorities in their own homelands.
To ensure the patient’s recovery, UKIP would have to become explicitly pro-white and advocate policies to deal with the non-whites already in Britain. The only realistic long-term solutions are repatriation, depressing non-white birth-rates, and secession. Given that one UKIP candidate was fired for advocating in jest that black celebrity Lenny Henry should go back to Africa if he wants to see more black faces on TV, this is somewhere that UKIP simply won’t go.[28]
The success of UKIP raises the question of what the pro-white movement should do now. Firstly, the movement should be honest enough to recognize its limitations. The movement, even if it could organize itself into a voting bloc, would not make any noticeable difference to the outcome of the election. Activists with a history of pro-white advocacy would be barred from entry into UKIP and secret agents would only survive in the party if they publicly disavowed fundamental nationalist principles. The leadership in UKIP is committed to remaining in the Overton window and will ruthlessly purge anyone who threatens their position within in. Activists could repair to one of the micro nationalist parties. But politics is the art of the possible, and explicitly pro-white politics is not possible at the moment. This is largely the reason why the BNP imploded, and UKIP is on the verge of a major electoral breakthrough.
The populist wave that will deliver UKIP success in the upcoming elections is not of our making, and we are in no real position to influence it. But the populist wave will alter the political landscape in ways that will be favorable to our cause. In the meantime, while UKIP is ascendant there is no room for a nationalist party. Instead of bemoaning this fact, nationalists should count it as a blessing and take this opportunity to refocus our attention away from party politics to metapolitics. The publishing of cultural magazines such as Mjolnir[29] and efforts to form intentional nationalist communities are steps in the right direction.[30] Through activism like this, the Overton window can be reframed in our direction and one day make nationalist politics possible.
Notes
[1] http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/04/uk-eu-election-britain-idUKKBN0DK0E920140504
[2] http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/census/869_CCSR_Bulletin_How_has_ethnic_diversity_grown_v4NW.pdf Dynamics of Diversity – Source based on 1991 census. Non-whites represented approximately 3 million out of a population of 51 million.
[3] http://www.brugesgroup.com/
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dranqFntNgo
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax#European_Commission_proposal
[7] https://counter-currents.com/2013/06/democracy-today/
[8] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9840059/Why-Poles-love-coming-to-Britain.html
[9] http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem.php
[10] http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-flows-a8-and-other-eu-migrants-and-uk
[11] Denmark, which until recently had one of the strictest immigration policies, opted out completely from the asylum and immigration legislation from the EU, despite the fact that there was no provision for a member state to opt out.
[12] http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.26
[13] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jan/11/bbc.race
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kilroy-Silk
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election,_2005
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Background
[17] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/03/nigel-farage-superpower-politics-lightly
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKIP
[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
[21] http://britishdemocraticparty.org/ukip-leader-exposed-by-euro-liberal-boss/
[22] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/20/council-mistakes-ukip-foster-parents
[23] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/10/children-sexual-abuse-failed-authorities
[24] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/16/nigel-farage-edinburgh-protesters-van
[25] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24222992
[26] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/1-4-britons-believe-ukip-racist-poll-finds-114012399.html#
[28] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/29/ukip-lenny-henry_n_5233827.html?view=screen
[29] https://counter-currents.com/2014/05/review-of-mjolnir-magazine/
10 comments
“It is also at present zealously protecting the interests of the City of London against a proposal by the European Commission to tax financial transactions.”
What is noble about that? What’s wrong with taxing swinish financiers?
“However, since 2004 the European Union has been enlarged to include the former communist countries of Eastern Europe. This has meant, firstly the outsourcing of Western factories to the East and secondly a massive migration wave as Eastern Europeans flock West.”
Enlargement was a British scheme to dilute Franco-German power within the EU, as well as making the EU more unwieldy and ineffectual. Enjoy your blowback.
“Although Americans visiting the UK might be pleasantly surprised when they visit cities like London and Edinburgh and find that much of the hotel and bar staff who serve them are young whites hailing from Eastern Europe, it is important to remember that this white migration wave — which at its highest point in 2007 represented 1 in 5 legal immigrants — is not a substitution for non-white immigration but is on top of non-white immigration, which still represents two thirds of the legal inflow.”
Three million Brits live and work in the EU. Fifty percent of it’s exports are taken by the EU as well. Half a million Poles is a small price to pay for all of this. Assuming it is a “price” at all. The UK is clearly a net beneficiary of EU membership.
Which is why I’m in favor of tossing it out…..
“a massive migration wave as Eastern Europeans flock West.”
If they displace the African/Mid-East/Asian, would that be bad? After all they are Christians. aren’t they?
Wikipedia defines the Overton window as “a political theory that describes as a narrow window the range of ideas the public will accept. ” This is a misleading notion. The elites are consistently to the left of ordinary people, so the real question is what the elites will accept.
The elites can do anything they want, they have the money like the. James Goldsmith case provedor, a single wealthy Jew can make its own political Party.
They can also threaten the leaders of popular parties like the BNP with jail time.
The question shouldn’t be what the public will accept. It should be what message can be gotten to the public and at what cost.
In one of his talks Jonathan Bowden said that in right wing political circles it was well known that Farage is a raging Powellite.
Eikos,
Do you have a source on that?
I came up with what I think might be an interesting way to deflect the charge of “racism,” if you aren’t afraid to come across looking like a loon:
“We’ve gone beyond racism! We’ve developed a new concept called BIOPOWER, because we realize that the human genome is a grand new vista of ideological struggle. He who controls the genepool will control the world!
It’s not racism, it’s biological warfare.”
Why “we”? Because you should always think of yourself as a member of a revolutionary vanguard party, even if only spiritually.
Deflecting the charge of racism:
“We must negate, terminate and render obsolete the individualist language clichés, and we can do that by contextualising them, by putting them in more sensible terms, by highlighting them for the absurdities they are.
We are neither Racists Nor Anti-Racists!! They are Racephobic. They are scared to admit that race exists, and are incapable of talking about it like grown ups, and wish to terrorise people into speechlessness.”
http://www.identityforum.org.uk/2014/04/white-identity/bridging-the-shibboleth/
See you on the NH
On my way to the polling station today I noticed that the house which for the last several election cycles always had a vote UKIP placard displayed prominently in the window and clearly visible to the rest of the street. Today in an election where UKIP is expected to win, the owner chose not to display it.
I do not know who owns the house so I don’t know for certain why the placard was not displayed. I suspect, however, it wasn’t displayed due to the wall to wall smear campaign in the last few months that has stigmatised UKIP as a racist party in the eyes of the public.
Although only an anecdote and not a scientific poll I believe it is indicative of two contrasting trends. UKIP has never been more popular thanks to a large and growing proportion of the electorate who in the privacy of their own minds no longer believe what they are told by the elite.
However, these same people continue to outwardly conform to the doctrine of political correctness in public due to the fear of being stigmatised as racist and the sanctions that often flow from being labled as one.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.