The Political Weapon of Debanking By James Reed

The debanking and cancellation of the bank accounts of the Canadian truckers was a trial run, one supported by the courts. The came Britain’s Nigel Farage, best know for Brexit, and criticisms of immigration. Farage found out a that his bank was closing down his account, and he never got a reason for this; and other banks would not take him on. However, demonetarisation  on YouTube, and other social media sites seems to also be common for dissent material, forcing many to move to other platforms like Rumble.

But, the debanking one is the most worrying, since it shows what the globalist elite will do once they have in force Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC). All the dissents at this blog will be eliminated with a few clicks of the keyboard. It will begin with those critical of the sacred vax, then those concerned about immigration and transgenderism, but ultimately those promoting alterative economic policies, which challenges globalism will go down as well. No-one is safe, which is why, this is yet another vital fight, one of the most important.

https://unherd.com/2023/07/coutts-and-the-rise-of-private-tyranny/

“Coercion and tyranny are what governments do to us, whereas the private sector is where choice, consent, and spontaneity reign. This is one of the bedrock certainties of the modern Anglo-American Right, and each day brings fresh evidence that it’s a myth. Nigel Farage is only the latest ardent free-marketeer to learn the lesson the hard way.

Last month, the former Ukip and Brexit Party leader had his account unceremoniously terminated by his financial institution, the London-based Coutts. Initially, Coutts claimed that the move was based purely on “commercial” considerations, having to do with Farage’s failure to meet a requisite “financial threshold”. Yet as the firm’s internal deliberations have revealed, the decision to de-bank Farage had almost entirely to do with his political views and associations.

In a meeting last November, Coutts’s reputational-risk committee counselled against “continuing to bank” Farage given his “publicly stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation”. Farage’s crimes include his use of “globalist” as a pejorative; his “‘useful idiot’ admiration” for Vladimir Putin; his retweeting of Ricky Gervais lampooning gender ideology; and his meeting with vaccine-sceptical tennis champ Novak Djokovic.

De-banking, and the freezing of digital assets and transactions, form a relatively new strategy for suppressing dissent in supposedly non-coercive market societies. It was first deployed in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot in Washington, when PayPal blocked a Christian crowdfunding site that facilitated fundraising for detained protesters. Days later, GoFundMe said it would ban any crowdfunding campaigns for travel to political rallies “where there is a potential for violence”.

The following year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government invoked Canada’s Emergency Act to de-bank truck drivers involved in an anti-vaccine-mandate uprising. As Canadian-born trucker and activist Gord Magill reported, Trudeau’s financial crackdown was “far more sweeping than initially believed: Not only personal bank accounts, but insurance policies, investments, and business activities of anyone targeted by the government were suspended.”

Coutts’s de-banking of Farage takes these developments still further. He lost his account owing to his exercise of free speech on issues, not least Brexit, over which reasonable Britons disagree. He wasn’t involved in any febrile street movement (not that that should ever justify losing one’s bank account). Nor was the decision taken at the behest of any public, governmental authority subject to democratic accountability.

The de-banking of Farage is thus an especially glaring case of what I call private tyranny: the unjust and often-systematic coercion that suffuses our lives as workers and consumers.

The prevailing market ideology conditions us to think of coercion as something only states do — especially dictatorial regimes in places such as China and Russia. The market, we tell ourselves, couldn’t possibly be a site of coercive tyranny. After all, our banks, insurers, employers and social-media platforms don’t wield an army or police force. Our market relations with these entities are governed by “consent”, and because the private sector is divided between numerous competing actors, no single one of them can oppress us.”