When George Orwell arrived in Aragon to fight against Franco in 1937, it wasn’t the poor state of the weaponry that worried him, and it wasn’t the enemy. As chronicled in Homage to Catalonia, he was more alarmed at the number of factional squabbles there were on his side. In-fighting in the face of the enemy similarly afflicts the political Right today, and the call to “unite the Right” is a forlorn cry in the wilderness.
See if you can spot the mistake in this statement; “We on the Right must refute the arguments of those on the Left”. It’s the word “We”, which assumes collective agreement and common purpose among the different factions on the Right. There is only a broad commonality of purpose among those on today’s political Right, and it is largely reactive. That is, it defines its positions by what it is not and therefore by what it opposes.
This may seem like a lack of political principle. By this token, to be of the Right is simply to define yourself by what you oppose rather than adherence to higher ideals both valid and worth living by in their own right. Surely, that is that old curse-word that pre-dated even “Racist!”: “Reactionary!”
But this is to make a very post-modern, a very woke mistake. One’s political position must be a reactive project. Why should it not? How could it not? From mild distaste to outright disgust, the human animal prides itself on not being that which it finds objectionable. The woke use of “othering” as pejorative is a bastardization and reification of a human response as automatic as breathing. The recognition of the other in all his difference and similarity is viewed by the Left as though it were something you do when you are in a white oppressor kind of mood rather than being what it is, a natural function of intersubjectivity. “Othering” is perfectly standard issue for homo sapiens. It helps them get along, or not. You recognize the other because it is in your interest to do so. You may have to help him, or be helped by him, or fear him, or wish for his comradeship. Which is just about where conservatism makes its entrance.
I’m English and so my starting-point for Right-wing politics is conservatism. Standard definitions feature traditional values, free enterprise, private ownership, and often an opposition to change. But “traditional values” are vague. Some tribes have traditional values which include hacking each other to death on a regular basis. Are they conservatives? Some hardcore Muslims want to take society back in time, just like old-school Tories. It’s just that they favor the seventh century rather than the 1950s and black-and-white telly.
I have seen conservatism compared with paleo-conservatism in the US, but British (and mostly English) conservatism has a particular cast all its own. The financial and governance stuff is fairly straightforward: low taxes, small government, competent authority. The conservative view of the nature of man is that of a being possessed of moral agency. The perpetrator of a crime, for example, is actuated by personal choice rather than a range of environmental concerns. He should then be punished for his poor choice as much as the resultant crime. Civic society, private property, the role of the family, a respect for the land (a genuine legacy of the landed classes’ once-monopolistic grasp on British politics), and traditional notions of honor, virtue, courage and other attributes are a selection of other bastions of conservatism, as least as I see it. These look like our “higher ideals” noted above, and not reactionary at all. But for at least one man, possibly the greatest English commentator on British conservatism in living memory, not being conservative was a result of precisely the same self-definition by a rejection of the other.
The late Sir Roger Scruton, a talented and urbane philosopher who brought his wisdom to bear on civic structure, describes his own early affiliation with the political Left, and its purely reactionary nature, in a 2003 essay for The New Criterion:
To be a conservative, I was told, was to be on the side of age against youth, the past against the future, authority against innovation, the ‘structures’ against spontaneity and life. It was enough to understand this, to recognize that one had no choice, as a free-thinking intellectual, save to reject conservatism.
This is partly an accurate summation of a pervasive intellectual mood in the 1960s, and partly a dire warning about that same mood today. Natural conservatives reject their spiritual homeland through peer pressure. Plus ça change. Scruton moves immediately to the events in Paris in May 1968, which he witnessed and which became his epiphany. By the end of a long essay, that Damascene moment has arrived:
Henceforth I understood conservatism not as a political creed only, but as a lasting vision of human society, one whose truth would always be hard to perceive, harder still to communicate, and hardest of all to act upon.
Scruton’s essay can’t be recommended highly enough for a grounded, historical grasp both of British – and particularly English – conservatism, as well as the reactions and rejections of toxic Leftist dogma that go to form that creed. From what I can guess and gather, some form of conservatism is the bedrock which ought to unite the Right, a common language all on that bank of the great divide may speak. So why doesn’t it? The short answer is that mere allegiance to “the Right” is just an indicator of political position, not a grid reference. Political beliefs on the Right are far more shaded than on the Left, although to say that the Right don’t indulge in intellectual lockstep as do the Left would not be altogether true. Not all on the Right are prepared to think the politically unthinkable.
Whereas in the decades before the boom of the 1960s one’s political beliefs and loyalties would have come from principle, now they are formed just as much by recognizing what one’s principles are not. It may not be possible entirely to convince yourself that you might lean toward the Right, but you know bloody well you are not going anywhere near the crazies on the Left. These are the floating voters whose behavior as the situation decays still further may be decisive. As the true nature of the authoritarian Left steadily emerges in the UK, there will be defections to reality on the part of many disenfranchised Leftists. Under the malevolent corporate socialism currently flogging Europe, a genuine political Right is essential right now, at this moment if not sooner. Europe is like the mythical Danish giant, Holger Danske, who after centuries of sleep awakes to defend the Danes. Europe is also waking, but, oh, so slowly.
The political Right is coalescing in the UK, but in European terms they have arrived at the party late. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Marine Le Pen in France, the AfD (Alternativ für Deutschland) in Germany, Vox in Spain, these parties and leaders are all far more established in their homelands than Reform UK and UKIP (who are also stressing an anti-woke campaign strategy, much to their credit). Austria’s Freedom Party – predictably referred to as “far Right” by the BBC – have just won a famous electoral victory as I write this. But a political shift of this magnitude is chess not checkers, and its glacial slowness since the first wave of mass migration crashed at the behest of Angela Merkel in 2015 is only now showing any signs of acceleration. But all of these rising factions still have their taboos, their conceptual no-go zones, of which the predominant territory is race.
There are lines in the sand even on that part of the beach inhabited by the Right, and race is the most uncrossable. It has been interesting to watch, or rather, listen to, the British Right-of-center media. This is basically GB News and Talk Radio, which has recently gone online only due to viewing-figure problems. They are beginning to mention the clear and present phenomenon of anti-whiteness – or “blancophobia” – in something other than hushed and apologetic tones. And so the concerns of white nationalists, separatists, supremacists and so on are hoving into view like a ship on the horizon. Does this mean the Right is suddenly uniting? It does not. Race is the deciding factor. We have been told for a long time we must “look at everything through the lens of race” and so we are. We first must make sure, however, we have the telescope the right way round. And we do see race everywhere, practically by mandate.
Many parties in the UK make a point of their civic nationalism. The Blair government started it, as they did so much of the promotional apparatus used by the contemporary political class. And so political parties make much of their own internal diversity and assume that some kind of deep magic means that all is well in multicultural Britain, a sort of demographic version of Quod est superius est sicut quod inferius, or “as above, so below”. All the while political parties are more concerned about the quota of black and brown faces in their ranks, they are unlikely to pay too close attention to the communities of black and brown people in the real world, with all their dysfunction and cost, both financial and social, they incur for white tax-payers. Political parties are not communities. They are cabals formed of those who understand that the mechanics of self-advancement require the assistance of others. They get it. Black and brown people commit a disproportionate amount of crime compared to whites, for example, but that is not something for politicians to be overly concerned about. Their world is secure, and so the security of ordinary people is very much of secondary concern, or lower.
And our political beliefs are also conditioned by the type of society in which we wish to live. We have a sort of Platonic ideal in our heads and we seek to synchronize our political standpoint on various issues by how that ideal model directs us, like a compass needle pointing magnetic North. Crime is on the increase in London, but any increase in police presence is not to deter crime – as it once was – but confined to marches and demonstrations, and attending Pride parades. That’s glib but it’s not far from the truth. In the nearest town here in Costa Rica, there has been a problem recently with Venezuelan and Colombian drug gangs, presumably keeping their hand in on the way up to the El Dorado of the USA. As a result of this uptick in potentially very violent crime, there are more foot police on the streets. The cops here are armed and fit because the country has no standing army, and all the fit blokes become Fuerza Publica. Now, let me think. Which country would I rather live in, if I wanted to feel safe? And yet this is a country with a Leftist government and a Leftist history. Why this conservative attitude towards law, order, and citizen safety? Partly because there is none of the ideological clutter here that infests the UK. The police can just deploy men – always men – on the streets quickly because they don’t have to worry about diversity optics, or getting pronouns right, or whether there are enough lesbians on the force. They just do policing. They have conserved a civic tradition where the UK signally has not. This, then, is the problem infecting the West, and known as “woke”.
This is a crass word for a ruinous belief system, but we understand what we mean when we use the term. It works, like “Left” and “Right”, as Bowden’s intellectual shorthand. It can’t be stressed too highly how much of an affront “woke” is to conservatism. As part of a multi-pronged offensive, the whole woke program is guided by a desire to subvert norms, it is literally anti-conservative. That this is incredibly dangerous either has not occurred to its proponents – in which case we are in real trouble – or it has occurred to them and they are happy to ride that tiger. In that case, we (there’s that hopeful “we” again, that cry in the wilderness) are up against a formidable enemy because they are certainly not risk-averse.
Woke, then, is an agreed common target for the Right, be they Christian, dissident, white nationalist, small-c conservatives in the British suburbs or guys who love American History X but can’t watch the end because it’s too sad. Woke is also, of course, opposed by even moderate Muslims. You very much do not have to be a fire-breathing imam to oppose gender ideology in your children’s classroom. There is no drag-queen story hour in a madrassa. How are politicians handling this slippery bar of soap?
Lee Anderson is an interesting character. Winning a seat in Parliament with Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, he is shaping up to be the party’s “big beast”, the psychological lynchpin all parties should have, the two-fisted, don’t-suffer-fools-at-all-let-alone-gladly, Slugger O’Toole type of old-school conservative. He also has a way of identifying the concerns of the ordinary people – those pesky voters and tax-payers – and expressing them in simple and unadorned soundbites. “I remember a time”, he said in his bluff Northern accent during a speech at the party’s recent conference, “when our children went to school and were taught to read and write and become good citizens. They weren’t taught that they could change gender and listen to a six-foot-five drag queen read stories to them.”
But where will Anderson go with race, and where will he fear to tread? I shall watch his career with interest.
As for “media outreach”, as I believe the young people term it, your precise location on the grid of the Right will be plotted first before you get near the British Right. I have contacted a number of British Right-of-center organizations for interviews, review copies and so on, and with most of them we go through the same ritual. After their initial warm response to even a sniff of journalism, they have someone Google me. This person finds that I write for Counter Currents and The Occidental Observer. If they are media-savvy, they will know these titles and they are too rich for the blood of many on the Right. Reform UK, the Reclaim Party, Turning Point UK and The New Culture Forum have all done exactly what I have described. Like those old maps of the world which signposted uncharted waters with the warning, “There be monsters”, so too the infrastructure of the British Right has a map with people like me flagged up under the rubric, “There be race-realists”. Because that’s what this is all about.
Race realism sets apart this zone of the territory of the Right, and is why the Right can never unite. At present, both blacks and whites are actually getting a raw deal from the boosting of black identity politics. Whites have to put up with being told on an hourly basis of our own base vileness, as well as having our fallen state unfavorably compared with the magnificent new people of Wakanda, who are here in their finery to save history from the deleterious ravages of the white man. In terms of real history, blacks really just got in the way. But the new orthodoxies have rewritten that script. “Does the truth not suit us?”, thunders Solzhenitsyn. “Then away with the truth!” Now, blacks built Britain and whites are lucky to have a seat on the bus. But the fare for this is not noticing, and should you do so, you will never gain admittance to any notional “big tent” of the Right.
Whiteness is permitted but must not be the main theme of a keynote speech at a party-political conference, say. But none of this stops black males knifing one another to death. Nor do all the virtuous black people in advertising, or the recasting of traditionally white roles with blacks, or all the awards and plaudits and affirmative action freebies, nor do any of them make a difference to the utter dysfunction at the heart of black society. And this edict now has all the weight of authority, something the Left are very good at while abdicating responsibility, which they allocate to the Right.
Wikipedia has to be approached with caution, but if you seek a diagnosis for the disease of Leftism, it repays inspection. The first sentence of the entry on “far-right politics” shows the faulty belief system of the Left: “Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.”
What is the Left’s obsession with authoritarianism? Is it just that there are a lot of women on the Left, and Ralph Fiennes looks just dandy as a Nazi? The Left themselves are authoritarian to the marrow, but this attribute always has to be attributed to the Right. Is this straightforward Freudian projection? All I do know is we probably need a lot more of it, but authority over our own tendencies and their apparent conflict. You cannot have team-work if no one agrees who is and is not on the team.
I don’t understand the intricacies of American football, but I do understand one key element of the game. Different players perform very different tasks on the field. One guy just hurls the ball, that’s what he does, hopefully to a team-mate, whose job is to catch it and progress to the line. Others are there simply to block opposition players, like armored doormen. One guy comes on just to kick field goals. Then he goes off again (probably at more of a trot if he just missed). That’s what he does and that’s all he does. It is unlikely that these various functionaries could swap positions and improve team performance. Until the Right understand the importance of very different functions and roles, the Left are going to finish every game with more points than “us”.
Personally, I think there is a collapse coming, and that will focus the attention a little. When the West finds out what it can and can’t afford, both fiscally and in terms of the ongoing damage done to white culture by non-whites, then those things won’t be budgeted for anymore. A lot of blacks are going to be out in the cold, wondering whether to convert to Islam now or perhaps tomorrow at the latest. A lot of whites are going to feel that talismanic quality that the globalists want everyone but them to feel; empowered. But for now, the race denialists are still the obstacle to a united Right. We will see how long their ideological omertà lasts when it comes to accepting the future in the increasingly near term. As I said to one of the political parties who treated me to post-Google radio silence after their initial warmth and schmooze; Sooner or later, you’re going to have to talk to people like me.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Related
-
Fear Not, Little Lambs: Trump Will Never Take Away Your Right to Cry
-
Bodies: Why Was the Greatest Pro-Life Song Written by the Sex Pistols?
-
The Dead Don’t Give a Damn: Elem Klimov’s Come and See
-
The Return of the King?
-
Nice ‘n’ Sleazy: 10 Disreputable American Albums
-
Unmourned Funeral: Chapter 10
-
Unmourned Funeral: Chapter 9
-
Anti-White History Month
9 comments
These people you speak of are not race denialists. They simply choose to ignore the topic because if they don’t they will be shown the door and their cushy jobs are over. It’s only a recent phenomenon that Charlie Kirk and his ilk have mentioned anti white policies. The obvious can’t be ignored forever.
In the Northeast I’d say only about 30% of Whites are in any way racially aware. Race denialism is part of their religious creed. Even after being assaulted many will cling to their brainwashing. I’m guessing it’s not much different everywhere else in the US except the South, where I hear it’s nowhere near what it was in the 1980s when I lived there. Forced integration has worked, to a degree, and educational brainwashing, too. Third graders in NY no longer learn about Miles Standish or George Washington, it’s Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman. We might be able to unite under a kind of libertarian Republicanism, but that’s it. It’s much worse than most can imagine in our segregated hamlets. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out White IQs have dropped significantly in the last 20 years. Maybe it’s the plastics?
Excellent article, Mr. Gullick, as usual.
However, one issue: the phrase is anti-whiteism, not anti-“whiteness”.
“Whiteness” is an anti-white concept and psychological warfare tactic that should be given no legitimacy.
The only thing we need to know about “whiteness” is to remember the names of those who invented and propagated it, for future prosecution after our people are back in control of our own countries.
‘Whiteness’ is a good idea. It expresses the idea that Whites have something in common. ‘Anti-Whiteness’ is equally good because it expresses the idea that something is against ‘Whites’ as a collective.
At some point, folks on our side are going to realize that ‘Woke’ can be an asset in our struggle. Not because we agree with it, but because it is built up around an ‘us/them’ distinction with Whites as ‘them’. This works to our advantage as White Nationalists.
To me, ‘woke’ is just the next stage after political correctness. ‘We’ then – these factions of the right described, of course should be worried about it insomuch it’s a sign our enemies have got powerful and entrenched enough to be this bold, but not over study the thing itself, because it doesn’t have any real value of its own.
What are we comparing woke to ? Liberal democracy 20 years ago ? 40 years ago ? When things were ‘good’ ?
Just assume the stage after woke will be something like South Africa or Haiti, now backed by the entire corporate world of today, and that’s what we have to look forward to.
And that’s why I’m not totally sure where normie conservatism stands on the most important issues.
If you can only identify the crime and not its source, at what point are you going to be able to ? When it’s too late ? When it’s like Haiti ? What excuses will be made for it ?
If you can’t, or rather won’t, disentangle this ridiculous worship of capitalism from its effects, what use is it ?
How are you going to pull things back ? What can conservatives do, if they don’t want to touch any of it ? Nothing.
Although it is the case for most people, I no longer think conservatism is the right starting point. It’s the wrong one. It’s just a tendency towards certain things in a very superficial way that protects the system, no matter how evil.
As for what we do with them, they need to be pressured, shamed, replaced, and eventually oppressed if needs be to stop them carrying on where they left off.
‘At present, both blacks and whites are actually getting a raw deal from the boosting of black identity politics.’
This is typical ‘racial equivalence’ conservatard nonsense.
But, more importantly, why should Whites care if non-Whites are getting a ‘raw deal’?
An important part of White tribal politics is for Whites to cease ‘caring about everyone’ and focus on caring about Whites.
It’s time for Whites to lay down the ‘White Man’s Burden’ and deny ‘equal value’ the interest of non-Whites, especially Negroes.
‘At present, both blacks and whites are actually getting a raw deal from the boosting of black identity politics.’
This is typical ‘racial equivalence’ conservatard nonsense. – Hamburger Today
^^Absolutely spot-on, 100% agree!! I have never cared one whit about black people, and long ago stopped pretending to. I would suspect that many White people truly don’t care either, and are only deeply programmed to signal that they do. Until we stop pretending to care, even for the sake of making arguments directed at “normies”, we are never going to get where we need to get.
The assumption that ‘the Right’ would benefit from ‘unite’ might be better questioned that used as a foundation.
The chief problem of ‘the Right’ is that – except for racial politics – it has very little to offer the vast majority of people of any race. ‘The Right’ proposes an elitist program of ‘retvurn’ to the good ol’ days of Daddy Warbucks and the Company Town with ‘the lessers’ paying homage to ‘the betters’ and it’s caste all the way down.
Instead of ‘unite the Right’ perhaps ‘the Right’ needs to ask itself if being ‘the Right’ is really a viable political position at all.
A better ‘Right’ is folkishness and heterarchy, not ‘hiearchy’ and ‘eugenics’.
Focused on ‘the past’ as it’s lodestone, ‘the Right’ finds no resources within itself to evolve and adapt or even question its basic assumptions.
This orientation has just as much to do with ‘the Right’ failing century after century as does the fact that the policies and political-economic order ‘the Right’ proposes are not one’s that most people want.
Thanks to Miss Helene my electricity was off for ten days so I’ve not seen anything on C-C or anywhere else during this period. The enduring question “Why the Right Can’t Unite” caught my eye.
I’m not in the so-called Right and couldn’t read much further in Mr. Gullick’s article than his first use of the disgusting word “woke,” since it is ebonics, first introduced by Blacks in the 1940s. “Politically Correct” says the same without butchering the English language.
Foremost White racial leader, Dr. William Pierce, astutely answered Mr. Gullick’s question nearly 50 years ago, here: “Why Don’t All the Pro-White Organizations Unite?” at nationalvanguard.org. It’s worth reading the entire Q & A to learn why the so-called Right will never unite.
A QUESTION posed to Dr. Pierce from Attack!, Issue No. 42, 1976
Q. Why don’t all the patriotic, pro-White organizations unite instead of each one trying to win the battle against America’s enemies separately? If we could join forces the way those on the other side do, we would begin winning a few battles instead of losing all the time.
A. The answer to that question is readily apparent to anyone in the leadership ranks of any of the organizations in question, but it is difficult to explain convincingly to someone who does not have such a favored view.
Very briefly, the reasons for the disunity among patriots may be roughly broken down into differences in motivation, personality problems, and differences in ideology.
Under the first heading we should note that the actual motivations which various individuals or organizations have for taking a certain stand — on racial mixing, say, or communist influences in the government — differ markedly. Some take their stand because it expresses their genuine convictions and they are determined to accomplish something in accordance with those convictions.
But there are, unfortunately, numerous so-called “patriots” — and among them are some of the most “successful” — who have no convictions at all. They are simply businessmen, salesmen, and the product they sell is whatever patriotic Americans are willing to buy at any particular time. They hold a moistened forefinger up to the breeze of patriotic opinion and decide that now is the time to push an anti-busing amendment, or opposition to the Panama Canal “giveaway” — or even “patriotic unity.”
And when a genuine patriot denounces one of these hucksters publicly, the response from the rank and file is, “Don’t attack another patriot! We need unity, not discord.”
Finally, there are a number of individuals — “old fighters” — who are sincere enough in their convictions but who have given up any real hope of accomplishing anything. They have a few devoted followers who subscribe to their newsletters and keep them barely solvent, and so they continue churning out their broadsides. It is what they know how to do, and they feel comfortable with it. They have no interest in anything beyond that.
Personality problems take several forms. There are some patriotic leaders who simply cannot get along with certain other leaders, or who do not trust them, or who are intensely jealous of them. This, happily, is a problem not confined to patriots.
The leaders of some organizations are on a permanent ego trip. Each is thoroughly intoxicated with the feeling of being the biggest frog in his particular pond, and the last thing he wants is to jump from his pond into a lake, where there may be bigger frogs. There are probably more than a hundred one-man “organizations” of this description in the country, and the idea of gaining anything worthwhile by somehow unifying them is simply laughable.
But, discounting the hucksters, the “old fighters,” the ego-trippers, and a few especially sensitive or abrasive personalities, why can’t the remaining minority of patriotic leaders get together — the ones who believe enough in the cause for which they are fighting to put it ahead of personal considerations? Alas, it is usually that fervent devotion to a cause which itself provides the stumbling block in the path of unity.
A businessman, whose sole interest is maximizing his “take,” will readily make whatever compromises are conducive to a bigger profit. Ideology is simply a commodity he sells, and he is always prepared to switch to a new line of goods when sales conditions change — or to take on a new partner or to enter into a merger.
For different reasons, the organizer of a purely ad hoc group, with no vision beyond the achievement of an immediate and practical goal, will often be willing to join forces with whoever can help him, regardless of differences in style or beliefs.
On the other hand, the leader who has struggled for years — giving up his career and any semblance of a normal family life — in order to advance a cause which has a deep ideological significance for him will be less ready to compromise his beliefs for a temporary advantage. He takes the long view of things and is more concerned with keeping his group headed in the right direction toward a distant goal than he is with negotiating the next bump in the road.
To the exasperated patriot who wants immediate relief from creeping communism, crime in the streets, and busing, ideological quibbles may seem unimportant. He simply cannot understand why the fervent libertarian, who abhors busing as a government constraint on the individual’s freedom of choice, cannot collaborate to stop busing with the racial idealist, who abhors busing as a racially and culturally destructive practice. He forgets that the libertarian also abhors “racism” (as a form of “collectivism”), and the racial idealist abhors the egoism, the atomistic hyper-individualism of the libertarian. Neither is willing to signify approval of the philosophy of the other by collaborating openly.
Now, all this does not mean that patriotic groups do not or cannot collaborate. They often do, and there undoubtedly will be more collaboration in the future. The National Alliance, for example, collaborates with several other groups and with individuals whose beliefs do not coincide with our own, even though such collaboration is sometimes not publicized. But it does mean that any sort of close-knit patriotic confederation, incorporating most of the presently existing groups under a unified leadership, is extraordinarily unlikely.
This, however, may not be the unmitigated catastrophe it seems. Combining weaknesses does not necessarily yield strength, just as eight cripples, by joining arms, do not yield one gladiator.
When what is needed is genuine strength, not a combination of weaknesses, the way in which the strength will be achieved is likely to be through a free play of forces — through a selective competition among different groups, from which one will emerge as the most fit to lead our people. It is a wasteful, even tragic process, but it has always been Nature’s way.
Everything beautiful, noble, and of enduring value in this world has come about through such a process, which has ruthlessly weeded out weaknesses, punished mistakes, and corrected errors. That for which we are now striving will only be attained in the same way.
We must do whatever is necessary for us to win — including the joining of forces with other groups, when that can advance our cause — but we must not make the mistake of sacrificing our true strength — which is the correctness of our ideas — for the illusory advantage of a more rapid gain in numbers.
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.