The CuckservativeWilliam Solniger
A caterpillar rests upon a twig,
With no intent to conquer earth or sky;
He merely wants to eat until he’s big
Enough to turn into a butterfly —
And on that day, he’ll think of flying high.
No soaring, tragic thoughts he entertains,
No hearty lust for trouble or for war;
He knows these things are never worth the pains
That could be spent on eating more and more —
At least until the time he’s waiting for.
But, though he marches on his abdomen,
His principles stand high as mountain-crests:
He never deals to insects or to men
The interference he himself detests —
And hopes, in turn, to labour free of pests.
Two mangy wasps fly over with a whine,
One large and strong, the other lean and smart,
Our munching caterpillar to malign —
Who, though he has the muscle, lacks the heart
To shed his courtesy with an upstart.
The big wasp buzzes, in a righteous rage:
“Look how you eat with privilege and style!
“And yet your kind, though in another age,
“Ate my kind’s food, and drove them to exile” —
With that, she stings him hard with venom vile.
Before our green friend can retaliate,
The thin wasp starts up a loquacious drone:
He cries: “My friend, not violence but debate
“Befits those high ideals that are your own;
“A herbivore, when guilty, should atone.”
So our friend speaks with reason, truth and skill,
Refutes the she-wasp’s false and arrant tale,
And hopes that now they’ll leave him eat his fill;
But, cries the wasp, “Mere facts cannot avail,”
“When love and justice lie upon the scale.”
On principle, our caterpillar leaves
Things to a vote; which, carried two to one,
Resolves that all his ancestors were thieves,
And orders him a penance that, when done,
Might exculpate this perpetrator’s son.
He lets the wasps lay eggs in his insides,
And then goes back to forage and ingest;
His hard work for the waspling-eggs provides,
But still he won’t expel them from their nest:
“When one makes gains, he profits all the rest”.
In time they grow to almost half his weight,
And dragging them around is quite a chore;
But still compassion gives no way to hate:
He minds not for the body, just the maw —
“Too much control brings danger to our door”.
But then they start to eat him from inside,
An outcome he’d neglected to foretell;
Though saddened at their lack of civic pride,
He reckons all things will be just as well
As long as he preserves his empty shell.
At last they burst forth from his hollowed hide —
Emancipated larvae in array;
We might expect our friend dissatisfied:
His food purloined and insides chewed away,
He’ll never see his glorious dreamed-of day.
But our green friend, though empty, fills with bliss
To see adopted children come to birth;
It’s true he dreamed of other things than this,
But don’t we all, before brought back to earth
By family values and their simple worth?
And thus he guards the offspring of his bowels:
Protects them first in thick cocoons of string;
Then roundabout the little wasplings prowls,
To fall with rage on any hostile thing,
Until he starves to death — and they take wing.
A caterpillar lies upon the mud,
Who never showed a housefly-maggot’s pluck
Against whoever came to suck his blood,
Then meekly shouldered all of his ill luck;
The word for such a creature — is a cuck.
David Duke Reverses Opinion on Jews after Mel Brooks Binge
Před a po Táboru Svatých: k další tvorbě Jeana Raspaila
Lenders Should Lose:
Why Biden’s Student-Loan Forgiveness Is a Bad Idea
The Conservative Way of Accepting Dispossession
Remembering Rudyard Kipling (December 30, 1865-January 18, 1936)
The Worst Way to Defend Kyle Rittenhouse
Remembering Roy Campbell (October 2, 1901–April 22, 1957)
Remembering Charles Krafft: September 19, 1947–June 12, 2020
The Body Invaders video on youtube is magnificent (in a manner of speaking, of course). And what a set of verses from William Solniger. Reminds me somehow of that poem by R. Kipling, which I don’t recall the title of.
Yep, we are biological creatures and our whole world is a biological entity, after all is said and done. Micro/macro. Look to the microscopic world, now – you can think of your compost pile – for further fun info on our fate.
As good Traditionalists, we should get Medieval on their asses, the way Berlusconi did with that clueless Spanish politician : Make the sign of the horns at cuckservatives. A stylized version on signs and tee-shirts also could be lots of fun at cuskservative campaign rallies.
Come to think of it, Photoshopping the likenesses of particularly deserving cuckservatives onto the head of the grinning fool that is the target of Silvio’s gesture could also be worthwhile.
It is heartening to see insurgencies such as Gamergate and White Nationalism at last begin to draw blood through the adoption of open source techniques, is it not?
“What did you do during the Meme Wars, grandpa?”
“I triggered the entire Harvard Women’s Studies department during the Battle of Cambridge, Bobby. Those poor, deluded fanatics hadn’t even been issued any earplugs for their last stand at the Faculty Club, so of course they never had a chance. You should have seen the looks of anguish on their hatchet faces…but that’s not something I care to dwell on. Say, isn’t it about time you said your prayers and skedaddled off to bed, young fella?”
We perhaps should not be surprised that some (no names need be mentioned) on the “racialist right” support the cuckservative meme because , as they chastise the cuckservatives thus: “non-Whites won’t be expected to support Israel.”
Indeed. What else matters?
It’s called talking to people in their own language. If that’s a reference to Taylor, it’s impossible to believe he’s sincerely shilling for Israel. My guess is he’s just taking what he believes is the path of least resistance for now, until a critical mass of support is formed. For some inexplicable reason you seem to think it’s impossible that a politician could ever go back on his word, therefore if Taylor makes pro-Jewish noises today he’s committed to it for life. Unz once told me that a prominent WN who obsequiously courts Jewish support is rumored to have a collection of Nazi memorabilia, adding that he wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the rumor were true. He didn’t name Taylor, but that’s the obvious candidate. If he was referring to Taylor, I wouldn’t be surprised if the rumor were true either.
Against my better judgment, I will reply to this.
First, second-hand rumor about someone’s “collection of Nazi memorabilia” is absurd. Who cares? Even if it is true, it means nothing.
Second, I am well aware of the fundamental dishonesty of politicians (and not only of politicians); in the USA, the Republican party has made mendacity towards their supporters into an art form. Taylor, however, is not a politician in the strict sense. If you want to apply politician’s values to political activists, we can then ask what’s the benefit of all of this.
If the pro-Jewish attitude is employed to attract Jewish support, then it has failed miserably. If it is more cunningly employed to attract moderate White gentiles (e.g., “see, I’m not a Nazi anti-Semite”), then the jury is still out. Given the low quality of discourse on Amren comments threads, I don’t see how anything of worth is being attracted. The strategy is similar to Republicans pandering to minorities in order to make their cuckservative policies more palatable to SJW White suburban soccer moms, or mainstreaming European nationalists who also worship Jews and denounce extremism. Benefits are doubtful and the history of Republicans in power in the USA suggests that it is not the moderates who are fooled by secret extremism, but actually the extremists who are fooled when their “white knights” actually govern in a craven and moderate fashion. As I wrote elsewhere:
“What mainstreaming does is break down the barrier between tactics and ideology, between means and ends. If you portray yourselves as aracial conservatives, peddling some sort of watered down cultural and constitutional patriotism, then you will not only attract “moderate” mainstream voters, but you will also attract “moderate” leaders and political candidates. You will attract big money supporters who want to make the “facade of moderation” become actualized as core party ideology. In summary, instead of tricking more moderate voters to support a radical party, you end up tricking more radical voters to support a moderate party. Sen’s experience is that the core UKIP voters seem farther to the “right” on race and immigration than is UKIP leadership. Sound familiar? Thus, GOP voters oppose amnesty and mass immigration, while the leading GOP candidates and the party machine embrace immigrants, legal and illegal alike.
When you mainstream, means become ends, and the original ends are lost; the leadership forget, or pretend to forget, what those original ends actually were. In America, we end up with Hispanic Jeb and his illegals who invade “out of love,” in the UK, we end up with “far-Right nationalists” who think that brown and black “commonwealth immigrants” are A-OK. It’s a big joke and the joke’s on us.”
Theodore, you have singlehandedly written a freshman survey course upon the whole problem. The department faculty is promoting you to Assistant Professor. Kudos. The hood is in the mail.
(Translation: ‘Theodore’ correctly nailed the ups and downs.)
I must disagree. It appears that Ted is confusing the mainstream of an ideological brand name with the mainstreaming of ideological content. This is what allows him describe mainstreaming efforts as attempts to “trick” soccer moms into supporting WNs, and to point out that only people being fooled by the way this plays out are WNs themselves.
This would be like people who regard themselves as national socialists appealing to moderates on a platform of “increasing immigration,” and “more money for holocaust education” and “encouraging racial intermixture.” It’s conceivable that this may allow “national socialists” to win elections but the ideology would by then have been so watered down that it’d indistinguishable from the contemporary mainstream; all that would have been promoted is the name, the title, the brand “national socialism.”
If this is what mainstream attempted to do then I would agree completely with Ted about its worthlessness. But mainstreaming is about making ideological content more palatable to mainstream tastes; and as mainstream beliefs and values change, so do the particulars that mainstreamers focus on as part of their campaign.
The recent debate between the alt-right/racialists and cuckservatives has been very instructive for me. I once had a great deal of respect for men like RS McCain (“racist,” but not, you know, racist). I always felt that when push came to shove they’d put their differences with WNs aside and stand up to denounce anti-whitism. I’m much less sure of that now. Indeed, RS McCain’s position seems to reduce to something like, “I refuse to allow the left to cow me into sitting back and being racially dispossessed and suffering through the indignities and disadvantages which attend that process. No siree, I will defiantly sit back and be racially dispossessed and suffer through the indignities and disadvantages which attend that process!”
If I only mentioned that in order to pass on a rumor then you’d be right to upbraid me. But the reason I mentioned it was to highlight the point that I’ve never been convinced that Taylor says what he really believes when it comes to certain issues (of which Jews are only one). I’ve always believed that he’s holding back, being expedient. On this count, you’re simply wrong that the rumor “means nothing” if true.
The point isn’t so much to attract moderate people as it is to introduce white racial interests into acceptable political discourse. Whether a person remains “moderate” or not after he’s pondered racial issues for a time is largely irrelevant; if he has shifted from believing that concern for white racial interests is illegitimate to believing such concern legitimate it hardly matters whether the label “moderate” applies to him or not. If a moderate supports racialists because he himself has come to care to some degree, small or large, about his racial interests then he has not been “tricked”; he has been enlightened.
An awareness of Jewish political and cultural influence is not in itself “immoderate,” but experiences teaches that it produces in some people a most unfortunate tendency to focus so intently on the Jewish angle of any particular racial issue (and once a man has reached this level of racial awareness virtually everything becomes a “racial” issue) that the impression many people develop is that to be concerned about white interests is to be an anti-Jewish monomaniac. The effect is very similar to that of post-modern literature professors who seem to believe that the sexist or racist aspects of some venerable work are its most important aspects – virtually completely ignoring the reasons why the work became a classic in the first place.
We have on the one hand a wealth of experience of failed mainstreaming, including the transformation of the Republican party into a pro-immigration Neocon love nest. We have failed experiences at “mainstreaming” in the “movement” here and abroad. On the other hand, we have “I’ve always believed that he’s holding back, being expedient.” Your personal belief on something does not make it so, does not prove it so. It’s only your personal belief. My “personal belief” is that someone so vehemently pro-Jewish, someone who is close friends with Derbyshire and who mingles with that man’s family, has reached a point where “expediency” and belief collide.
But, fine. Here’s another belief I can propose: Jeb Bush is really a radical White nationalist! Why, he’s only being “expedient!” His marriage to a Mexican, his mixed race family, his far-left politics on immigration, his amnesty mania, his distaste for native-born Americans – it’s all a ploy! Once elected, he’ll raise the swastika flag and deport Columba and the kids to where they belong!
Now, we need to be careful what we mean by mainstreaming. If it means calibrating your language to appeal to more people *without* compromising basic principles, I’m all for it. However, if it means altering basic beliefs, changing fundamentals, it’s a disaster. Unless you think any of these “movement” personages are going to seize power as a dictator and can do what they please, the reality is they are painting themselves into a corner with their “expediency” – assuming your “belief” is correct that it is just “expediency . What are they going to do? Suddenly shift their opinion? Declare themselves secret anti-Semites? Publicly scorn their good friend “the Derb?” Lose all their support and followers, those who come to them precisely because of their moderate beliefs?
No, we are told, people “grow up.” We have the “gateway hypothesis” invoked. The “mainstreaming” attracts people to race and then they “wake up later” to other issues. Is there *any* proof for this? I see the same people on Amnren threads for years, cloistered in that environment. How many “wake up?’ And what is the cost/benefit ratio? For every outlier who does “wake up” how many “drink the koolaid” and believe that racialism is all about pontificating to Jews and Israel?
In a word, yes.
Rather than “lose” their supporters, however, I see it as, having once hooked them, dragging their supporters along with them. I find it ironic to be telling someone who envisions a pan-European “Imperium” that he needs to dream bigger, but if you consider “moderates” to be some scarce commodity whose support can vanish at the drop of a hat, that’s exactly what you need to do. You have to look forward to a day when “moderate” racialist beliefs are held by virtually everyone. Indeed, you could just as well look backward and recall a time in America when precisely that was the case. But in this “alternate reality,” moderate society zigs towards more foundational racial policy rather than zag towards racial oblivion.
Let’s assume Silver is correct and that Taylor is really an anti-Semitic radical with a secret collection of Nazi memorabilia – including the Blood Flag, the Spear of Destiny, Artur Axmann’s prosthetic arm, and Hitler’s ashes in the Meister Urn.
If so, we can make two conclusions:
1. We congratulate JT for being so secretive and cunning, hiding all of this from not only the likes of Bob Weissberg and John Derbyshire, but also from the radical philo-semite Ian Jobling, who left Amren because of his belief that JT’s public persona was insufficiently pro-Jewish. A job well done! If only other “movement” personages were as deceptive! We all look forward to the day when a yarmulke-wearing Kevin MacDonald gets appointed to the ADL’s board of directors, for example.
2. What’s the benefit of all this dissembling and deception? Well, sure, Amren has their annual mass meeting rallies – funded by wealthy Jews – in Madison Square Garden, and, yes, Taylor joins Al Sharpton as a White House race-relations advisor, and, yes, Amren is sending to Counter-Currents hordes of new recruits, all dressed in spiffy new SS uniforms. But, what else?
Seriously though, even IF the “expediency” hypothesis true, then to what end? The System still labels Amren as a “neo-Nazi, KKK, White supremacist” organization. There is no evidence that the “gateway hypothesis” is correct. Judging from Amren comments threads, the people attracted there were already hostile to Blacks and Hispanics, and, for the most part, these people stay at Amren for years, making endlessly repetitive complaints about “Black crime.” Where’s the breakthrough in public perception? Is there evidence that the Amren approach has appealed to the public any more than that of, say, Kevin MacDonald or Greg Johnson? Or even William Pierce? We all have opinions, but the real world evidence shows scant support for the idea that the benefits of such expediency is worth the costs. On the other hand, if it is true belief and not expediency, then all these arguments are irrelevant.
I resent this careless language. I never claimed he possessed such a collection; I simply said I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he did. What would your reaction be? “Well… I never . What's so radical about it anyway? Even I, who despise their policies and their virulent ultranationalism, admire their aesthetics.
The obvious answer is: it takes time. Who are you to say his efforts are running behind schedule? You really come off like a child in the backseat of a car whining, “Daaaad, are we there yet?”
Sure there is. Just look at the smashing success of the cultural left. Was their public message in the 40s and 50s, when “integrationist” efforts first began to bear fruit, that the white race needs to be abolished? Of course not, but just look where we are today.
You’re in no position to make that determination. People generally begin posting after they’ve come to agree with certain WN perspectives. If they begin posting before they’re sufficiently convinced, their tentative and quizzical probes invite a torrent of vitriol that few can withstand. The fact is we don’t know whether, in general, commenters there already agreed (surely some would have) or whether something about Amren-like presentations convinced them (some have confessed this to be the case).
Secondly, there’s no data on “graduation rates.” I too have been reading Amren comments for many years. The comments remain mired in the same dither about crime and IQ, but only a few of the same names remain. If Amren hadn’t deleted comments on earlier articles when they made the switch to disqus I could probably prove this.
The Cuckservative phenomenon needs to be examined in more depth. I’d venture to say that it is, in part, a payoff for years of White Nationalist and Alternative Right pushing certain themes mostly via the Internet. And if so, shows how the Internet is a real front for information warfare, one which outflanks the other side’s lockdown on other forms of media.
I’d also note there were elements of the Old Right who criticized mainstream conservatives for selling out. Derisive terms such as “country club Republican” and “squish” were popular among some of the more extreme members of YAF and such.
Here’s one thing I’d like to see done today: sit down a “Cuckservative” and say something like this:
“You must be aware of the attacks against white people. You know, the importing of third worlders to replace middle class whites; or the affirmative action programs which displace white candidates for college and jobs; or the anti-white agitprop from the mocking commercials to campaigns against “white privilege”; or the politicized criminal violence such as black flashmobs, black rioting, black torture-murders of whites from South African farms to your local ‘hood. What do you suppose life will be like for your children and grandchildren? Why aren’t you standing up to do something about it today while there is still time to act?”
I have brought up these points in person and in online forums. When dealing with liberals, of course, one gets the usual ideological responses intended to rationalize away white defeats (pace Burnham’s “Suicide of the West”). But even among conservatives, there’s a tendency to shy away from a serious consideration of the racial issue. Mainstream conservatism is infected with a crude economic marxism where everything reduces down to lower taxes and no minimum wage. As long as one pays the lowest price possible for goods, services and labor–everything else can go rot.
Perhaps the Cuckservative meme is a positive sign that things are turning. Regardless, this is an infowar line which needs to be pushed ever further.
A relevant image:
“I never claimed he possessed such a collection; I simply said I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he did.”
LOL. Splitting hairs, much?
“What would your reaction be? “Well… I never . What’s so radical about it anyway? Even I, who despise their policies and their virulent ultranationalism, admire their aesthetics.”
So…”virulent ultranationalism” is not radical? I’m assuming that is supposed to be a serious comment?
Like I said, I answered your comments against my better judgment. I won’t make that mistake again.
The point was that a collector of nazi memorabilia needn’t necessarily be favorably disposed towards nazi-like virulent ultranationalism.
American racialism in general – not just Amren – is worse off in certain ways than it was twenty years ago. Amren, however, is still kicking, while the other racialist outfits from that era have closed up shop. You are so fixated on the negatives you seem to have missed this.
I disagree. Mainstream rightwing sites like Breitbart and WND these days routinely come off like WN-lite. News stories involving race are constantly peppered with well-articulated pro-white racial comments (although it’s difficult to know how many of these to attribute to online activists and how many are spontaneous outbursts). Mainstream rightwing luminary Ann Coulter has adopted and added her rhetorical flair to many a Sailerist talking point. Takimag has been transformed in the last five years. These are all encouraging developments and their emergence owes everything, as I see it, to the constant nudging ‘whitewards’ by the mainstreamers you deride.
No. Taylor may prefer to sidestep the JQ but he has never made support for Israel a litmus test. In this article for Libertarian blog “The Last Ditch” Taylor makes it clear he believes 9/11 was the result of US support for Israel, as well as making it clear that it is not in America’s interests to fight Israel’s wars. The comment in his letter to cuckservatives you’re referring to was directed at cuckservatives, who do support Israel, pointing out that as America darkens such support will be more difficult to maintain. He’s giving cuckservatives cuckservative reasons to take a stand on race and immigration. Nothing in his letter or his wider record of activism suggests it’s something he himself considers important.
The kid’s father should tell him, “Look, son, see those mountains in the distance? That’s where we’re headed. But the road before us is blocked, so we’ve got to take a more circuitous route.”
“but only a few of the same names remain.”
Indeed. And the original names, I’m sure, will not be found in any other “movement” venue- but dropped out and now campaigning for Jeb Bush.
“Who are you to say his efforts are running behind schedule? You really come off like a child in the backseat of a car whining, “Daaaad, are we there yet?””
Amren was started in the early 1990s. It is now 2015. At one point, Amren conferences – in major hotels – were carried on CSPAN, if I’m not mistaken…now they run to TN to hold conferences under federal protection. After an entire generation (nearly) of existence, it can be argued that the Amren message is *worse off* and *less* mainstream then it was, say, 20 years ago.
I’m sure that there are some here, anti-racists with a history of wrecking racialist blogs, who would like to see another 20-25 years of failure, with their snarky commentaries towards those who believe that 20 years should be sufficient time to observe at least small glimmers of progress..or, at the very least, not backsliding.
The first issue of American Renaissance was dated November 1990. This coming November will be the 25th anniversary of its founding. For virtually all of its existence I’ve been a reader. I’ve written articles for it as well, and am more familiar with many things than are snide anti-racists who come onto racialist blogs pretending friendship.
Now, Taylor has done a lot of good for White racial interests, and we all, I think, appreciate that. My point is that we can view all these groupuscules as experiments in activism. The Pierce experimental model, which was radical, failed, primarily, in my opinion due to failure of leadership and strategy. I believe the AR experimental model has, if not failed, has not been successful in making progress. It has stagnated. There is no evidence that moderation is ‘winning.’ Even within the “movement” I see the best of the lot (such as it is) gravitating to the more radical groups. As regards reaching out to the public, there has been no success, after an entire generation of effort, an entire generation in which the racial situation has worsened and the Internet has made access to information infinitely easier.
However, I am not in any real sense advocating an end to the Amren experiment. Who knows? It may work. My original comment was, simply, the irony of attacking “cuckservatives” – defined as looking out for the interests of others over your own – while making “the interests of Israel” some sort of litmus test. And, by the way, it’s not an issue of someone making “pro-Israel” or “pro-Jewish” comments ***today*** – it’s been for ***25 years.*** I don’t know, maybe a person who is in their mid-60s and who has been following a particular line of ideology for 25 years, maybe it’s time to judge them on their body of work and make some at least preliminary judgments on their accomplishments? I mean, I don’t want to rush their schedule and all of that, and I’m sure these folks have another good 50 years of activism left in them (at least!), but a very preliminary accounting of accomplishment may be prudent at this stage.
I would like to emphasize that I am critiquing strategies, not personalities. As I said, Taylor has done a lot of good for White racial interests and his videos on the Amren site are the best thing there, making the case for race realism (at least about Blacks and Hispanics) in convincing fashion. Pierce was sincere in his racial beliefs and he has ardent admirers, more than 10 years after his death.
This is not personal critiques toward men who have done more than any of us here. It is an impersonal critique of approaches. It is also a measure of standards and accountability for these experiments in activism. Pierce was running the NA for ~ 30 years. AR has been around for ~ 25 years. Given the standard human lifespan, and given the current negative and rapidly declining racial trends, it is not unreasonable to look for ***some*** signs of progress after 25-30 years of sustained effort. No, we are not asking for “victory” and we are not asking for “rapid growth” – merely asking: is the experiment better off today than when it started? Better than 20 years ago? 10? Five years? Better in any way at all?
If we cannot see such signs, and if the experiment shows no signs of re-direction, we can say, without rancor, without personal animus, with good faith and sincerity – “I appreciate what you have done, and best of luck to you, but I need to try something else.” It is also possible to critique other ongoing experiments without personal rancor (note I did not name anyone in my original comment).
Moderation, trying to appeal to a historically hostile group that does nothing but denounce you, this has not led to success. And, over time, it has real costs – “turning off” dedicated activists, diluting and diverting the message, misdirecting efforts,
Equating “what has been accomplished in a QUARTER-CENTURY?” with “Dad, are we there yet?” is the height of mendacity. I don’t know, if that kid has been driven around aimlessly for 25 years, probably he should ask if he’s there yet or not. The “movement” certainly is not “there” yet, or anywhere close to “there.”
I’m not sure if it is worth getting into this argument too extensively here, especially because it seems to be getting rather messy and personal. However, I would simply like to suggest that whatever failures we see with the “movement” may have little to do with whether its message is radical or moderate. I used to consider that that was the case in the past, but after numerous debates with people on topics like race and ethnicity, it occurred to me that the real problem with the “movement”, especially in the Anglophone world, actually has more to do with intellectual quality and morality. Those always seemed to be the problems people who were on the fence struggled with. Up to now, at least in regards to the majority of its thinkers from what I have seen, the movement in the Anglophone world has provided poor intellectual arguments and has not expressed moral ways to solve ethnic/racial issues. Honestly, when I look at the majority of Anglophone “racialist” thinkers in the past 50 years or so, it seems that nearly all of them do nothing but re-hash base, biologistic, and materialistic arguments about race, which are unconvincing, and then offer up rather brutal suggestions to solve the situation. Look at the progress of the European New Right, which takes intellectually and morally sound, yet still radical positions, in comparison to the movement in the English-speaking world.
There’s no point in me going any further about this, because I and others have already discussed it in past comments, but it is something that always needs to be remembered when getting into debates like these.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Edit your comment