In many ways it seems the tide is turning. I can even post a meme on Facebook labeling Fauci as a Serial Killer (for Halloween).
The Twitter censors have been sent packing. The Alberta premier has condemned discrimination against the unvaxed. Yet in Normieland the misplaced virtue signaling continues with its own toxic inertia.
In today’s email inbox I received a post from the literary site Reedsy with information for writers about the Romance genre. But so much for the escapism of romance, or fiction itself—upon clicking to the web version, a banner at the top of the page proclaimed, “We stand with Ukraine.” Really? Who’s “we”? And what does Ukraine have to do with Romance fiction?
It’s just another sell-out to a fake corporate “consensus.” I could just ignore it and move on, but in the face of yet another facet of “mass formation,” I align rather with the imperative to speak out and challenge that dangerous myth of consent. So I fired off a reply to the sender of the original email, rejecting the de facto propaganda:
This is outrageous on two accounts: 1) that before reading a post on a literary topic I am assumed to agree with a completely one-sided political stance; and 2) that political stance is in support of a murderous Nazi terrorist organization, Ukraine. (Fundraising for the Ukrainian “children” is no excuse, since no doubt the Russian-speaking children of Donbas are excluded from such sympathy). I imagine this contentious banner is perhaps why the Comments section is abruptly closed after only one innocuous comment. Yet the offensive banner remains. I suggest that whether you agree with its premise or not, it has no place on a site concerned with literary matters.
If the above reply of mine smacks of a kind of counter virtue-signaling, so be it. There is virtue required in countering the “mainstream” notion of virtue when that well-funded “cause” advances a self-serving geopolitical agenda, masked in the guise of charity and democracy, and dripping with the veneer of an assumed consensus.
(See also: Why is there a Ukrainian flag flying over my beach?)
Part two of today’s rant concerns the banning of my book, Covid Narrative Freedom, from Canada’s leading ebook retailer, Kobo. For all of Amazon’s well-deserved criticism, the book is still available for sale there (and also at Apple, Barnes & Noble, and Google). But Kobo informed me that the book “failed our COVID review. Unfortunately, it was determined that the content regarding COVID-19 does not meet our review guidelines and thus cannot be published.”
I immediately wrote back for clarification:
Can you clarify what your review guidelines are regarding COVID-19? And are these subject to change when aspects of the ‘official narrative’ change, such as CDC guidance? Or is there some other authority you consider the standard for your review policy on this topic?
Unsurprisingly, ten days later, I have not received a response.
I did check back on the book’s publishing page, to discover a notice to the effect of, all books with Covid subject matter were suspended from publication due to the controversy around it, while guidance would continue to be sought from “verified” sources. (Um, like the government and the CDC, who just unanimously approved shots for children, with all harm and no benefit?) That notice is now missing, replaced simply with a notice claiming a violation of the Kobo Content Policy, which currently has no mention of Covid whatsoever.
Thus, I am compelled to follow up on the matter, to Kobo support:
I find it both ironic and appalling that a book publisher/distributor would see fit to pass judgment and censor a call for “Covid Narrative Freedom,” based on a biased and demonstrably misguided public policy, which itself is in constant flux and has failed numerous legal, ethical, and scientific challenges. I urge you to review and remove this block on publication, since you have provided no specific evidence or grounds for its exclusion. In the meantime I am publicizing this issue to my readership, since it is Kobo’s policy on this issue that is wholly “inappropriate” and misguided. I look forward to updating them with a more conscionable response on your part.
Again, what place does such censorship have in that bastion of free speech, book publishing?
My local island bookseller has been kind enough to stock all my books, on consignment—except this one and the previous collection of similar essays, Metapolitical. Why? Because “some patrons of the store would be offended, and besides, a family member died of Covid.” I avoided entering the store for two years while they required masks, even after the government rescinded the mask mandate. But too bad, if I was excluded and offended. Too bad, if the local publication with my biweekly column of dissent was banned from the news rack full of establishment propaganda rags. Too bad, if I have a naïve belief that writers are tasked to challenge authorities of all stripes and to voice deeper freedoms of opinion and expression, or that books are a bedrock of intellectual and creative diversity.
Too bad?
No—we’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore.
It’s not okay, to just go along to get along.
There, that feels better.
Will it do any good?
Who knows?
Control what you can control.
Postscript
Good fascism, bad fascism
In response to the above post, a friend sent a YouTube clip of an international consortium of musicians, billing themselves “Artists for Action,” performing a revised 1931 protest song titled, “Whose Side Are You On.” The assumed answer to the repetitive chorus takes the form of a Ukrainian flag behind a couple of the presenters.
I thought the function of art was to challenge orthodoxy and groupthink; but if so, Bruce Cockburn, Bob Jensen, Ani DiFranco, and their collaborators have abandoned art’s heart and critical thinking, to champion instead a NATO stance of imperial conquest via a proxy Nazi state installed in a violent coup. Whose side are they on, indeed?
Organizer Bob Jensen reveals the partisan political agenda, to combat “far-right politics and the resurgence of fascism around the globe.” Never mind the fascistic tyranny of lockdowns and mandates over the past three years. Never mind the 2014 US takeover of Ukraine with its battalions rooted in the Nazi past and committed to ongoing atrocities. Never mind the brownshirt riots in the streets of America launched by the “progressive” forces of Anti-fa(scism) and BLM. These kinds of fascism must not count, or be called such, because they are “democratic” policies of “our side”—whose elections, by the way, must also never be questioned (except when the other party—“the far right”—steals them).
Then again, you can’t expect artists to be analysts of geopolitics. Fair enough—but then neither should they mount a platform espousing a geopolitical agenda without shame or humility, when it supports corporatist regimes who used to rightly be the butt of protest songs.
I guess what it shows is that the new business model (see Facebook and Twitter) counts on mass formation for guaranteed revenues, of two streams: grants and subsidies from the top (government and elite funders) and from the bottom (clicks from virtue-seeking conformists). My ongoing dispute with Kobo reveals the same operating principle.
Good business, bad business
This time the support department responded promptly to my complaint about their book-banning. They included the missing text I had noticed before, which had since disappeared:
In the interest of public health and safety, due to the extremely quickly changing nature of current events, Kobo is restricting the sale of Coronavirus-themed titles to certain vetted sources of information. This is not a judgement on the content of your book; we have made the business decision not to sell books on the topic that are not from pre-vetted sources of information. We thank you for your understanding in our efforts to prevent the spread of misinformation during this pandemic. (italics added)
As an aside, was it a veiled threat to end the email to me with this parting shot?
Kindly keep in mind that per section 2.1 of our terms and service, Kobo may at any time accept, reject, suspend or remove any Works that you have provided at its sole discretion.
No matter. I was still interested in finding out exactly what was the gold standard of true information, that could be immune from their content filter:
The aspect of the Kobo policy that I find problematic is the reliance on “pre-vetted sources of information.” Presumably these are “official” bodies such as government or public health agencies. It should be obvious to the Kobo team by now that those policies have been seriously flawed, leading to outcomes that have been far more harmful than helpful to the cause of public health. At the very least you must be aware that there is considerable expertise and evidence countering the claims of public policy, not to mention the contradictions within such policy itself. In short, there is ample reason to point out that the “pre-vetted” authorities you refer to are themselves a primary source of “misinformation” (case in point, the ongoing false claim that the so-called vaccines are “safe and effective”).
I am left with the distressing conclusion that what passes for a pragmatic “business decision” is a one-sided political allegiance, where in the name of neutrality you are suppressing all credible dissent to the status quo agenda. Has book publishing in Canada become just another domain of state propaganda?
Perhaps you can provide me with specifics about the sources of information Kobo has deemed trustworthy, and on what grounds Kobo has decided that their claim to truth is so exclusive.
Yet another prompt reply from Kobo followed, adding emphasis to the “business decision” driving Kobo policy.
I’m sure you understand that our jobs do not include analyzing government policy. This is a private business decision, and we will let you know if our own COVID-19 policy changes in the future.
I wrote back with my own parting shot:
Sorry to hear that your policy foregoes analysis and thus blindly supports an official narrative on faith alone. I’ll look forward to hearing of your updated policy soon, as that faith erodes in the face of mounting evidence.
By their own admission, applying censorship wasn’t driven by political analysis—just good business sense. Don’t rock the cattle boat, the slave ship, the groupthink gravy train. But if the biggest gatekeepers are all signed up on the same itinerary, they can stop with any pretense of standing for publishing ethics such as nonpartisanship, actually vetting sources, or honoring free speech. And the protest singers can perhaps bone up on their independent research before shouting imperialist slogans from the rooftops where snipers lie alert for real protest. In the meantime, I hope they reflect on what it means to be an “artist” and not a shill.
