The Banks Begin De-banking Dissents; We are on the List, but Down a Bit By James Reed

The use of de-banking – the acts of banks closing down the accounts of dissents – has accelerated. In the UK Nigel Farage was de-banked, but fought back and had victory, and now is championing the plight of people who are de-banked:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66354476

But, an even more in-your-face account of de-banking was done recently to  Dr Mercola, and not only he, but also his employees and their families had been abruptly deplatformed by Chase. There was no real explanation for this, as while Dr Mercola is a leading vax critic, his family are not. There can be no justification for this, it is purely a political act. And, since the Canadian government moved to cancel the bank accounts of the Canadian trucker protesters, it has become an resistible method of the elites to control dissents.

With Central Bank digital currencies (CBDC), this will enable anyone the system does not 100 percent approve of to face financial oblivion. Entire businesses and organisations could be closed down. CBDC must be fiercely opposed.

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-are-the-big-banks-targeting-covid

“Seven weeks ago, an article I wrote with the help of a citizen’s activist was published on Mercola.com

A summarized version of the article was as follows:

• The pharmaceutical industry prioritizes developing incompletely effective medications since they can be sold to patients much longer than an effective treatment that cures their illness. Because of this, a systemic bias against developing effective therapies has existed for decades and those that already exist (e.g., for Alzheimer’sor Obesity) have been buried for decades.
• The field of Alzheimer’s research has been plagued with scandals, and despite receiving billions for research, it has failed to produce a treatment for the disease. FDA has recently had some very questionable drug approvals for Alzheimer’s drugs that were quite dangerous, exorbitantly expensive, and ineffective for treating the disease.
• A recent private industry conference (which sets the tone for the healthcare industry) had the current FDA commissioner as a featured speaker. This conference declared Alzheimer’s disease and obesity were two of the most profitable upcoming markets and encouraged investors to take advantage of the opportunities offered by these new medical franchises.

Since the time that article was published, a few pertinent developments have happened:

• At the end of June, English Politician Nigel Farrage reportedthat his bank accounts had been closed due to him sharing political views that challenged the conventional narrative. Although his bank originally denied deplatforming him for political reasons, an about-face occurred and a few weeks later, the CEO resigned.
  
  •On July 4th, a federal judge ruledthat the Biden administration was illegally violating the first amendment by encouraging social media companies to censor anyone who questioned the flawed COVID-19 narrative. Prior to this ruling, the Biden administration was actively having critics of the pandemic policy be censored and de-platformed. Since this ruling, as best as I can tell, it is no longer as easy for them to de-platform political opponents on social media.
  
  Note: In May, a moderately large regional bank collapsed and the Federal Government decided to address the bank failure by having Chase bank to take the failed bank over. This suggests that the Biden Administration is working hand in hand with Chase and may be able to make requests in return for deals (like the bank acquisition) it offered to Chase.
• On July 6th, the FDA gave full approval to the Alzheimer’s drug that had received a questionable backdoor approval in January (discussed below). This approval was based on a 1795 person trial(with 898 receiving the drug) where it was found the drug caused a small decline in the rate of developing cognitive decline over 18 months (based upon the results of a survey that could easily be prone to bias) while at the same time 21.5% of those who received the drug experienced brain bleeding and or brain swelling.
• On July 25th, Dr. Mercola announced not only he, but also his employees and their families had been abruptly deplatformed by Chase:

There are a lot of ways to interpret what happened. The most common interpretation has been that debanking dissidents is fast becoming the preferred way to suppress political opposition (e.g., do you remember last year when Justin Trudaeu had Canada’s banks close all the bank accounts of anyone who peacefully attended the Trucker protests against Canada’s vaccine mandates).

This is likely being pushed forward since debanking is a relatively easy way to create compliance in the population and there is an increasing risk of widespread political rebellion against the bad policies (e.g., the COVID-19 vaccine mandates) that have been pushed by governments around the world. Typically, when policies like these are done, initially small but visible tests are carried out (e.g., a lot of people can clearly see what was done to the families of Dr. Mercola’s employees was wrong) to gauge how the public will react to them and if that tyranny can be normalized. Much of this in encapsulated by a famous poem I live my life by:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

For example, during Obama’s presidency, I watched easy to disparage groups affiliated with the alt-right first be censored online and then be deplatformed by Silicon Valley payment processors (e.g., Paypal). Many of my left-wing friends who were worked in natural health applauded this persecution and could not process why it might not be in their best interests to promote it. That same censorship was then rolled out against them (at which point no one stood up for them) and not to long after that, against anyone who dissented against the COVID narrative.

Note: Since the Federal Government was recently forced to back off from overtly violating the First Amendment on social media, less overt ways of suppressing speech are likely becoming a more and more needed tool for those nonetheless wishing to do so.

However, while all of the above is likely true, there is another important facet to this entire story—antitrust violations.

After the civil war, the US economy was taken over by a group of conniving scoundrels who eventually came to be known as the Robber Barons. A key approach they all shared was creating absolute monopolizations of their respective industries, which allowed them to milk obscene amounts of money as possible from everyone else.

Eventually Theodore Roosevelt put a stop to this through the 1890 Sherman Antitrust act, and broke up their monopolies. I and many others believe that Roosevelt was not entirely successful, because he caused the Robber Barons to diversify into other areas (e.g., after Rockefeller had to break up Standard Oil, he bought out the medical industry).

Since Roosevelt’s time, efforts have been made to prevent big players from monopolizing their respective industries (e.g., in the 1990s, Antitrust Lawsuits against Microsoft revolved around Bill Gates having his Windows operating system not allow competitors software on it), but they have not been as successful. Since that time, Gates appears to have followed in Rockefeller’s monopolizing footsteps and has gradually bought out the global health industry through the leverage created by his foundation and its media advertising dollars (which became obscene during COVID-19).

During Obama’s presidency, we began to see a merger between Big Tech and Big Pharma (as each invested in the other)—discussed further here and here. This was then followed by a gradually increasing censorship of any information online which challenged the pharmaceutical industry’s narrative.

During COVID-19, this kicked into overdrive. First, people were denied access to information about numerous lifesaving therapies for COVID-19 (ultimately resulting in many of them instead being forced to succumb to the remdesivir-ventilator protocol). Following this, a blockade was enacted against any information even hinting at the widespread harm emerging from the COVID-19 vaccines, something most of us believe now caused even more harm than denying the public access to early treatment options for COVID-19. As you all know, many of the things Big Tech censored for being “misinformation” (e.g., COVID-19’s origin from a lab) have since been proven true.

Many have thus argued the Big Tech companies should be held accountable for the harms that resulted from their monopolistic censorship. Although their conduct is beyond egregious, it nonetheless makes a lot of sense if you consider how many investments each industry had in the other and the incentives they all had to monopolize the marketplace so they could all make astronomical amounts of money off COVID-19.

At the time I originally wrote the article about JP Morgan’s conference, my focus was on the fact bad treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and obesity were being promoted by every sector of our economy (including the FDA) and that once you stripped the rhetoric out, that was because this was all about money. This really got to me because effective and affordable treatments (discussed further below) have existed for decades for those conditions and so much suffering occurs from them being kept off the market so more money can go to the healthcare industry.

However, when I looked deeper into it, I realized that the political implications of the financial sector both merging with the pharmaceutical industry and working hand in hand with an increasingly corrupt Federal Government was even more impactful to all of us. As you read the article below that seeks to describe the actual priorities of the medical industry, try to keep in mind just how many ways its points tie into the events of the last month.”