I do not remember how long I’ve been reading Gates of Vienna. I do not do it daily, but I use to accumulate a number of posts to print so I could read them comfortably; that is also why I do not use to comment nor participate in the debates. I have also linked GoV very frequently in my own blog; as a matter of fact, in the Spanish skirmishes of the former controversy after the Counter Jihad in Brussels, I was blamed for using mostly GoV as the source for my arguments. Now, since a few months I have contributed with several posts to GoV.
I am also a regular reader of Pajamas Media (PJM). I remember when it was created because it forced the outing of Barcepundit, who is probably the Spanish blogger best known in the anglosphere.
Pajamas has changed a lot since then: more info, more authoritative comment, and more appealing design. In brief, it has become a professional-quality media. Their motto is, nevertheless, the same: Sending the MSM down the river… It could be considered a little bit arrogant, but still legitimate, of course.
Under these circumstances, I was very surprised to read the news that GoV had been summarily ejected from the Pajamas group of blogs. That is, no explanation was given, but I could understand that it was because of the controversial post.
I have contacted Pajamas but got no answer, and neither GoV seems to have got an explanation. As a contributor, I want to make public that I support my hosts at Gates of Vienna.
I have started to investigate on my own here and there. I have tried to find some kind of a foundational manifesto by PJM, but there is not one, and the archive functions do not work as expected. I have found a number of articles from those initial days, but they were not what I expected.
- This one (A one-stop shop for the ‘best’ blogs) makes a couple of references to the higher advertising revenues of a joint approach to blogging, and a pretence to have not only conservative opinion but to encompass the complete political spectrum.
- This one (Three Political Web Logs Make a Run for the Mainstream) refers also to revenues and to the world-wide, round the clock possibility of a chain of bloggers.
- And again, this one (Will Pajamas Media Wake Up Blogs?) refers to the world-wide approach and to the encompassing approach to opinion:
Simon, however, stresses that Pajamas Media has no ideological leanings and that the group is trying to attract contributors from all over the political spectrum. “It’s not about right or left, it’s a different model,” Simon said. “There will be 70 different people with 70 different views.”
Well, now they are 69. I found also this recent article with and appealing title (John Wayne of blogosphere). I wondered which of those John Wayne values that the author wanted to emphasise in Mr. Simon. Independence? Courage? Well, they only thing I find, again, is concern for PJM’s business model:
In this Wild West online frontier, Mr. Simon might as well be John Wayne.
Along with Mr. Johnson and others, Mr. Simon founded PJM in 2005 in an effort, he said, to “monetize” the often unruly Internet world, where hundreds of thousands of readers each day go online to read and comment on the news, analysis and humour that arrive filtered through distinct personal perspectives.
The interview finishes with a contradictory statement on the dificulty of getting revenues from advertisers and winding up with a grandiloquent speech:
Persuading advertisers to pay to reach that upscale online readership is still a tough sell.
“This is not just a problem for Pajamas Media. Going forward, it’s going to be a huge problem for all [online] media,” he said.
The man who heads a major new media concern (though he doesn’t talk specifically about the finances of the privately held firm) said it’s not money that motivates so many to participate in the online discussion.
“What’s great about blogging is that it’s humanity,” Mr. Simon said.
Wow, “blogging is humanity”. These pompous words have not moved me; on the contrary, it seems that the real purpose of sending the MSM down the river is to get their share of the ad business. A legitimate objective, it goes without saying, though very arrogant and pretentious. Entering the market making such a noise is not actually good manners.
Neither is it the best manners not to give reasons for a decision. Decisions should be motivated; in particular the decisions of public officials should never surprise the market, because they should be taken on the basis of rules and sine ira et studio; that is, without passion or unfair pondering. Of course, everything changes in business: good companies are supposed to surprise the markets (positively); or in war: war is deception and some bloggers are using something worst than deception, flagrant lies.
But GoV is not competing with PJM nor is it at war with them. Then? Well, I suppose that PJM is only taking care of business, and GoV has become an inconvenient fellow traveler in a PC world. What can we say?
Those bloggers in Pajamas are now dressing up in the elegant Loro Piana suits and do not want to risk ruining them. They will simply loose the aura of independence, because they have demonstrated that they submit to politically correct opinion. An alternative media joins the mainstream. Good luck.
But what was so outrageous in the post by El Ingles that moved PJM´s board to eject GoV? In the essay I only find articulate and sound reasoning:
- One of the basic principles of Islam is imposing Sharia on the entire world, making non-Muslims second class citizens, actually serfs.
- Muslims feel now demographically, financially and cultural able to do it and are indeed planning to do it.
- There are two answers against any aggression: submitting and fighting.
- If we submit, then
Europewill be Islamised. The other possibility is to fight back,
- It would be still possible to fight back using the “legitimate violence of the State”, but we are not actually doing it –mainstream parties do not really care, see for instance Sarkozy- and the situation is deteriorating. Therefore, at a certain point there will be submission or popular riots.
This is what the post says. As indicated in Atlas Shrugs, using the word genocide, is NOT advocating for it. But I would go further; the mention of genocide by El Inglés is actually misleading, because what he describes is NOT genocide, but popular riots with massive killings. This is not the Armenian genocide, planned by the Turks; this is not the genocide of Ukrainian peasants, planned by the communists, and this is not the genocide of Jews and Gypsies planned by the Nazis. NO; this is just massive killings by the European peoples in the exercise of the natural right to self defence against the will of their political elites, who have not done their duties in due time to protect them from Islamic slavery and slaughter.
Therefore, why this scandal now? And why does PJM refuse to publish the motivation for their decision?