Amazon Bans Coronavirus Book for “Content Violations” Because It Criticizes the Official Narrative

Evan James   |  

Oct 17, 2020

• Share on Gab
• Share on Parler
• Share on Gettr
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Flipboard
• Share on Telegram
• Share via Email

In what has been a busy week of notable Big Tech censorships, Amazon added fuel to the fire by banning a coronavirus book that disagrees with The Official Narrative.

James Perloff published a book titled COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come: Red-Pilled and it had sold a modest 3,500 copies before Amazon yanked it.

Perloff spoke to RT about the ban:

The first sign of trouble came on Thursday when Amazon requested that he “clarify [his] rights to the book” – something he had already done upon putting it up for sale back in August. But before he could finish gathering the material required to prove once again that he owned the global rights to his own work, he received another email from Amazon, this time claiming they had removed his book “during a quality assurance review of [his] catalog” because it “violated content guidelines.”

While Perloff said he “asked them to specify what guidelines [he] had violated,” their reply merely restated that the “subject matter” of his book had been found to be “in violation of our content guidelines,” declaring the e-commerce behemoth “will not be offering this title for sale on Amazon.”

With five other books already listed on the platform, Perloff has communicated with Amazon extensively over the years, but something was off about these latest messages. In previous communications, “they would usually at least give a first name,” he said. “This time I was dealing with persons – or a person – who was cowering behind total anonymity.”

Big League Politics has written much about Amazon’s machinations and suppressions before. They’ve become another behemoth of a corporation with far-reaching tentacles. Although we may love the fast shipping and convenience they offer, they’re just another branch—albeit a rather large one—of censor-happy Woke Capital.

YOU VOTE: Should sanctuary cities lose federal funding for refusing to cooperate with immigration enforcement? *

• Yes – They are breaking the law and should face consequences.
• No – Cities should have the right to set their own policies.
• Only if they repeatedly ignore ICE detainer requests.
• I don’t know enough about sanctuary cities.

Email *

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You may opt out at any time.

Vote To See Results