“We are writing to inform you that we cannot continue serving you.
As a result of this decision, your account will be closed within 14 days from the date of this letter.
Any remaining account balances will be sent by check to the address we have on file.”
Sooner or later, expect your bank to send you a letter like this.
They won’t even tell you why they are closing your account, and you will probably have trouble opening accounts at other banks.
De-banking is a disturbing and growing trend.
In short, the ruling elite—parasites, more accurately—have weaponized
the banking system to enforce conformity to their preferred narrative.
If you speak out against Big Pharma’s poison, a phony climate
“crisis,” rigged elections, endless wars sold on lies, or whatever the
media is hyping as the “current thing,” expect the financial hammer to
come down on you without warning.
You could lose your ability to take payment from your customers and pay your bills at the drop of a hat.
We’ve seen banks close the accounts of prominent doctors critical of
the Covid mass psychosis and politicians opposed to schemes to
centralize power on a global level (globalism).
However, for every example of a bank closing a high-profile person’s
account, hundreds—or thousands—of other ordinary people likely receive
the same despicable treatment but are never heard from.
Every day people are losing their ability to interact in the economy
because the elite have determined they committed a thought crime.
Interestingly, the banks never canceled the accounts of the
warmongers who spread the lies about WMD in Iraq or the liars that led
to the toppling of the Ghadafi government in Libya and the liars that
fueled the Syrian conflict.
All of their bank accounts are in good standing, even though they contributed to the unnecessary deaths of countless innocents.
Nor did the banks close the accounts of those who, for years, peddled
the Russiagate lies that tore the country apart or those who claimed
the Hunter Biden laptop story was phony when it was, in fact, real and
probably affected the outcome of an election.
All of their bank accounts are in good standing too.
The banks also did not close Jeffrey Epstein’s accounts, even though they were likely aware of what he was up to.
These are just a few examples of the blatant double standard.
De-banking is another example of how formerly free societies are rapidly descending into high-tech totalitarianism.
It’s only prudent to expect de-banking to worsen as governments fall
deeper into bankruptcy and become more desperate to maintain control.
Controlling the narrative—partly by de-banking anyone with opposing
views—is crucial for them to try to hold on to their power.
Today you can be de-banked for having the wrong opinion. Tomorrow you could be de-banked for even more trivial reasons.
For example, even if you loyally follow whatever the TV tells you to
think, the banks may notice you are purchasing “too much” meat or gas
and are therefore exceeding your monthly carbon allowance. In the name
of saving the planet and maintaining their ESG scores, they’ll close
your account.
Think that’s far-fetched?
Consider that already, today, Bank of America shares all gun
purchases from its clients with the FBI. It would be naive to assume
they and other banks don’t automatically share additional data.
Or that PayPal recently floated the idea of charging people $2,500
for promoting so-called “misinformation”—a vague propaganda term that
really means “information the people in charge don’t want you to know
because they’re afraid you will come to a conclusion they don’t like.”
It’s not hard to see where the de-banking train is going.
We’re only a few stops away from a full-blown social credit system.
There Is No Free Market in Money and Banking
Money is simply supposed to be something useful for storing and exchanging value.
Banks are simply supposed to be money warehouses.
However, that is not how it works today.
Governments have perverted money and banking into tools to control the population.
An unconvincing argument you may hear is that banks are private
companies exercising discretion on their clients. They are within their
right to de-bank whoever they want.
They say it is no different from a baker having the right to refuse to bake a cake for someone they don’t like.
You could make that argument if only there was a totally free market in money and banking… but there isn’t. Not even close.
Here’s a more accurate analogy.
Imagine a situation where the only bread available on the market is
government bread, and the only way you could obtain such bread is
through government-approved bakeries. Independent bakeries would not
exist.
The government could then exert overt and subtle pressure on the
bakeries to ensure they aligned with their preferred narrative by
removing their permission to operate or threatening to. They could also
impose fines, start invasive investigations, or add more regulations.
There would be no shortage of ways a bureaucrat could find to make things unpleasant for the bakeries.
The bakeries’ owners know such a dynamic exists, so they
enthusiastically fall in line with the “current thing” to avoid
problems.
Then, suppose it became known to the bakery that one of their
customers had committed a thought crime. They wouldn’t hesitate to throw
him to the curb, even if he had been a loyal customer for many years.
It simply wouldn’t be worth the potential problems. Word would spread to
other bakeries that he was trouble, and they’d avoid his business too.
Since the only bread on the market is government bread, which is only
available from government-licensed bakeries, he would be unable to
obtain bread.
A similar situation exists today in money and banking.
In Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the 5th plank calls for the
“centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a
national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
That perfectly describes fiat currency and the Federal Reserve, which oversees the banking system.
The free market wouldn’t choose easy-to-produce government confetti as money without laws forcing their use.
Here’s another way to think of it.
Imagine if Al Capone forced his neighborhood to use pieces of paper
with his signature as money and threatened violence against anyone who
disobeyed. That’s what governments are doing with their currencies
today.
It’s a far cry from when people used gold—a politically neutral,
hard-to-produce asset voluntarily chosen on the market—as money.
That’s why the notion of a free market in money is laughable.
We don’t have free market money; we have communist money forced upon
us with violence and threats of violence. Further, for most practical
purposes, the banking system is needed to use this lousy “money.”
Similarly, modern banks are not creatures of the free market like the
independent money warehouses of the past. Today banks exist at the
pleasure and service of the state—and obtain special privileges as a
result.
Perhaps the most obvious observation is that there would be zero
government bailouts in a free market and certainly no such thing as “too
big to fail” banks. Incidentally, it’s no coincidence that the most
egregious de-bankers are the “too big to fail” banks.
Further, modern banks resemble government-sanctioned Ponzi Schemes,
as they rely on the false belief that depositors’ (fake) money is
readily available when, in fact, it isn’t because of fractional reserve
banking. If only a tiny portion of depositors demanded their money back,
most banks would be in big trouble.
Governments allow banks to commit this fraud that would be illegal in any other industry.
For example, imagine a fractional reserve car dealership or jewelry
store where the car salesman and jewelry store owner could create 10x
more claims for cars and pieces of jewelry than what actually exists in
their inventories. They would be selling claims for goods that don’t
exist.
Not only would such a practice be fraudulent, but it would also not be sustainable.
If even a few people who purchased fractional reserve claims on the
nonexistent cars and jewelry asked for delivery, it would blow the whole
scam up.
The government and the banks understand this dangerous dynamic, which
is one reason they created the so-called “lender of last resort,” the
Federal Reserve. When the banks get in trouble, the Fed can create new
currency units out of thin air to bail them out.
Let me translate it into plain English.
A “lender of last resort” means legalized counterfeiting of the currency to backstop a legalized Ponzi Scheme.
Such blatant fraud would have no place in a free market for money and
banking. However, because it is institutionalized and has the
government’s blessing, most people thoughtlessly accept the situation as
normal.
In a truly free market for money, people would voluntarily choose
whatever was most suitable for storing and exchanging value.
Historically, that meant gold because it was the one physical commodity
that was hardest to produce and most resistant to debasement.
In a truly free market, banks would cease to be government-sanctioned
Ponzi Schemes and revert to their historical role as independent money
warehouses. Further, anyone could enter the banking business in a free
market; you wouldn’t need the approval of the Federal Reserve cartel, as
banks do today.
That’s why the argument that de-banking is simply private companies rightfully exercising discretion is disingenuous.
The Solution
The ideal solution is to get the government entirely out of banking
and money and have a totally free market. But that’s probably not going
to happen anytime soon.
