The Politicization of Banking and the End of Freedom

A major leader of the Brexit movement, Nigel Farage, has just had his decades-old bank accounts closed, allegedly for “commercial” reasons, while seven additional banks have apparently refused to have him as a customer.

Until we have independent evidence of what is really going on with Farage’s accounts, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that the bank has closed his accounts for legitimate commercial reasons. But even if this particular account closure had nothing to do with political prejudice, there is no denying that the past couple of years have produced more than one isolated incident of banking services penalising customers for political or ideological reasons.

For instance, in Canada, we saw banks instructed by the Trudeau administration to freeze the accounts of protesters against vax mandates. In the United States, we saw PayPal briefly introduce a policy authorising it to close the accounts of customers it found guilty of “misinformation.” Among the victims of their new policy was Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, who saw three of his PayPal accounts abruptly suspended in 2022. A church minister recently reported on GB News that his bank account had been suspended for objecting to the transgender ideology being propagated by his bank.

These worrying precedents suggest that some providers of commercial services like credit cards and loans seem to think it is their job to make sure their customers have the “right” opinions on transgender ideology, the politics of vax mandates, and God knows what else.

Their role as mere providers of commercial services does not appear to be sufficient for them: they feel the need to withhold their services from individuals who espouse political or scientific opinions they happen to disapprove of. Perhaps they think they need to purge society of such opinions, or perhaps they think people with such opinions are simply not worthy of their services.

Of course, you might say, “If you don’t like your bank, go find another one.” And if it were just one idiosyncratic bank that decided to target customers on political or ideological grounds, you would be right: in that case, it might not be such a big deal, because you could just go to another bank, and put the whole sorry episode behind you.

But when the talibanisation of banking starts to become a society-wide tendency, or the banks involved are so enormous that they exercise a major hold over global payment systems (e.g. PayPal) upon which customers’ livelihoods may depend, then a customer with the “wrong” political opinion may well end up having to either face a major business setback (say, the overnight loss of all of their PayPal customers), or be effectively driven into exile in another country, where life is more tolerable.

Imagine a society in which outspoken conservatives, or Brexiteers, or libertarians, or socialists, were systematically locked out of banking services: those dissenting openly from the political views of the banking establishment would be condemned to live as economic pariahs: no mortgage, no credit cardS, and no way to conduct a normal business. Citizens would effectively forfeit their right to buy and sell, or participate in a market economy in a normal way, just because they expressed opinions disapproved of by the banking establishment.

Banks would then become instruments of political persecution and totalitarian groupthink instead of institutions devoted to the provision of banking services to the citizenry at large. The price of political dissent would become far too high for many citizens. The public square would quickly degenerate into an echo chamber of opinions approved by the banking establishment.

Since bankers are not infallible gods, the opinions they approve may be right, wrong, or plain crazy. Either way, under a talibanised banking system, such opinions would face little opposition. After all, most citizens, if forced to choose between expressing dissenting opinions, and surviving economically, would choose economic survival. And many who cannot bear losing their political voice would probably emigrate to a country where banks still provide their services to citizens without regard to their political opinions, leaving behind them a citizenry that is like putty in the hands of its banking masters.

I received this today via email from Dr. Robert W. Malone:

UK is weaponizing banking now
And you think it will not happen here to you? Wake up.

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/uk-is-weaponizing-banking-now?

This is a developing story. Below, please find a full transcript of Nigel's video statement on Twitter. What we are seeing is the usual gradual, stepwise normalization of the erosion of human rights and government norms that we had all come to take for granted. This is the face of creeping weaponization of the banking system to advance the political interests of both WEF-affiliated/infiltrated governments and the financial interests that back them. This is what happens when a citizenry allows “public-private partnerships” to transmutate into corporatism/fascism. And it clearly demonstrates that there is no line that our opponents will not cross. They recognize no ethical boundaries. Access to what you think you own can be restricted and appropriated at a moments notice, and the deployment of Central Bank Digital Currency will accelerate and operationalize this as a routine practice, just as is the case in Communist China.

The willingness of what were formerly considered “Western Democracies” to deploy advanced military-grade psychological operations technologies, developed for offshore PsyWar combat, on their own citizens is well documented. Mr. Farage’s Twitter post is deluged by attack tweets originating from the UK government troll farm known as the 77th brigade. And now the glove is off of the fist. Weaponized banking was first deployed against nation-states that would not comply with the Imperial mandates of the Administrative State and its WEF partners. And now it is reaching down to the retail level, to individuals. We can clearly see that fist now in the various “social credit system” activities and mandates such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion scorecards (DEI) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scoring/ranking systems. See “Corporate America's DEI agenda: Fortune 100 companies adopt ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ regime” published July 2022 by Fox News.

It has been observed that it was the German people who were defeated during WW II, not the Nazis. If you think that this type of thing, weaponization of banking to control your behavior and speech, cannot happen to you and your children- think again. Read about what the UK government (and Canadian governments) are doing, and in so doing stare right into the face of creeping Fascist (corporatist) totalitarianism.

They have no shame, they have no ethical compass, they believe that the ends truly justify the means, and they will do anything within their power to achieve those ends. Do you care about personal liberty and freedom? If so, it is long past time for you to act. Prepare and protect. Banking is not longer a reliable, stable system. Just like corporate media, it has become a weapon of the Administrative State Leviathan and its corporate partners.

Nigel Farage, in his own words:

Hello there. Now, you would think in the light of this that I'd be pretty happy, News Presenter of the Year. The TRIC Awards was pretty cool and a massive thanks to all of those people out there that voted for me. The establishment were, of course, appalled because they, in their little London bubble, think that I'm incredibly unpopular. Well, in Notting Hill, I might be maybe not quite so in the rest of the country, but actually, truth is I'm not full of the joys of spring. I've been living with something for the last couple of months that may well fundamentally affect my future career going on from here and whether I can even stay living in this country.

I have been with the same banking group since 1980. I've had my personal accounts with them since that date and my business accounts right through the 1990s when I worked in the City of London and in recent years, too. I'm with one of the subsidiaries of this big banking group, one with a very prestigious name, but I won't name them just yet.

I got a phone call a couple of months ago to say, “We are closing your accounts.” I asked why, no reason was given. I was told a letter would come, which would explain everything. The letter came through and simply said, “We are closing your accounts. We want to finish it all by a date,” which is around about now. I didn't quite know what to make of it. I complained. I emailed the chairman. Alas, he phoned me to say that it was a commercial decision, which I have to say I don't believe for single moment.

So I thought, “Well, there we are. I'll have to go and find a different bank.” I've been to six, no, seven banks, actually, and asked them all, “Could I have a personal and a business account?” and the answer has been no in every single case. There is nothing irregular or unusual about what I do. The payments that go in and come out every month are pretty much the same. I maintain in my business account quite a big positive cash balance, which I guess, with interest rates where they are, is pretty good for the bank, too.

So why is this happening to me? Well, one explanation is this. A few years ago, the European Union came up with a definition of somebody called a PEP, a politically exposed person. Now, this could range from anybody from a prime minister down to a local counselor. And I think the reason for it was, were people in politics open to bribery? Could foreign governments from Ukraine or China, or wherever else it may be, could they be pumping money into the accounts of corrupt politicians? So I kind of understand that and get that, but it's all about interpretation, isn't it? And what the banks argue is that to maintain an account for a politically exposed person gives them increase costs of compliance.

Now, I have spoken to the city minister in this country and there is some hope that this EU definition, which came into British law, may be moderated in some way. We'll have to see, but of course, any bank, any organization can choose to interpret a PEP or whether they want the account in any way they choose. To my knowledge, I don't think anybody has been treated like me in the world of politics, but then the banks, you see, themselves, are part of the big corporate structures in this country. These are the organizations who did not want Brexit to happen. And I think, in my case, probably the corporate world will never, ever forgive me because they know, if I hadn't done what I did with the help of thousands of people in our people's army, there never would've been a referendum, let alone a victory. I'm the one that is to carry the blame.

So that's the second possible reason why I can't get a bank account, prejudice that comes from our institutions, but I think there's a third reason. A few months ago in the House of Commons, Sir Chris Bryant, Chairman of the Privileges Committee, said, using parliamentary privilege, that I had received large sums of money directly from the Russian Government and he named the calendar year in which it had happened. Truth is I didn't receive a penny from any source with even any link to Russia. And yet, because he said it, it stands. I wrote to the speaker, I demanded an apology. Nothing has been forthcoming from Sir Chris Bryant. Well, I wonder whether that is what's given me part of the problem.

I have employed a top firm of London lawyers. I'm going through a series of subject access requests to find out what is held on me by the international agencies and by the bank that wants to close me down, but think about it. Without a bank account, you've effectively become a non-person. You don't actually exist. It's like the worst regimes of the mid 20th century, be they in Russia or Germany, you literally become a non-person. And you don't anymore, you did in the past, but you don't anymore actually have a right to be entitled to a bank account.

Now, there is a possibility for a FinTech company that I could find some means of receiving and paying money, which could be a little bit of a lifeline, but it's not a bank account because I won't be able to earn any interest on positive cash balances. I won't be able to borrow money, if I need to at any point, or take out a mortgage, should I so desire. That will be completely denied to me. I won't be able to have a debit card linked directly to my account. I won't really be able to exist and function in a modern 21st century Britain.

So I will tell you more about this on GB News at seven o'clock tonight and as to what my decision is, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps life in the United Kingdom is now becoming completely unlivable because of the levels of prejudice against me. I'll give you more of my thoughts at seven o'clock tonight on GB News.

More at the source link

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.