Ensuring Big Banks Respect Customers’ Rights

A top banking regulator is taking decisive action to put an end to the era of “debanking,” a practice where big banks deny services to individuals and businesses based on their political beliefs, industry, or ideology. This move comes after numerous instances of banks, including Google, Paypal, and Amazon, cancelling accounts and restricting access to financial services for those who held dissenting views on topics like the origins of Covid-19 and the BLM movement.

Under the Biden administration, several banks were accused of blacklisting entire sectors, such as firearms, and denying services to individuals based on their political affiliations, with a noticeable bias against non-Democrats. However, Jonathan Gould, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), has announced that supervisors are now closely monitoring banks to ensure they have ceased these discriminatory practices. This oversight is a direct result of a June executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which explicitly directs banks to refrain from denying services based on industry type or political considerations. Reuters reports that supervisors are working to ensure the largest banks are in compliance with this updated approach, marking a significant shift in the banking sector’s treatment of customers.

The practice of debanking has been shrouded in secrecy, with only specialists openly discussing its implications. However, its effects can be devastating, denying individuals and businesses access to essential financial services without any recourse or appeal. The issue has sparked concern among advocates, including Christian organizations and conservatives, who claim to have been targeted by these practices. Notably, former First Lady Melania Trump has spoken out about her own experience with debanking, revealing that she and her son Barron were victims of this practice in 2021, after her husband left office. The Trump family has been vocal about the concerted efforts to erase their legacy, with Eric Trump sharing his family’s ordeal.

Banks Denying Services Based on Political Views

What is the main purpose of banks?

· Keep money safe for customers

· Offer customers interest on deposits, helping to protect against money losing value against inflation

· Lend money to firms, customers and homebuyers

· Offer financial advice and related financial services, such as insuranceBanks are intermediaries between depositors (who lend money to the bank) and borrowers (to whom the bank lends money)

This should be the scope of all commercial banks. However, debanking is a form of main stream cancel culture and this is what prophecy has told us about cancel culture.  

Debanking: The Nigel Farage Case study

The banking systems were being utilized to exert social and political control, as evidenced by the compliance of Canadian banks with Trudeau’s request to freeze the bank accounts of truckers involved in the Canadian Freedom protests. Banks actively played politics, mirroring the actions of PayPal and other payment gateways, which froze the accounts of journalists. Graham Phillips, an independent journalist reporting from the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, had his assets completely frozen last year by UK authorities for merely reporting the truth about the conflict. Alina Lipp, a German journalist living in Donbas, was labeled a Russian terrorist and criminally charged by German authorities for her pro-Russian reporting, resulting in the shutdown of her bank accounts and those of her father. In the US, JP Morgan Chase allegedly severed ties with the faith-based non-profit National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF) last year, although the bank has since denied doing so due to the organization’s religious and political views. In 2023, Nigel Farage’s bank announced that it was closing his accounts, a decision that came without initial explanation, despite the controversial UK politician having been a customer for 40 years. Since then, Farage had attempted to open accounts at nine other banks but was unsuccessful. Banking discrimination was not limited to political figures like Farage or high-profile journalists, as banks were actively targeting individuals, with the National Australia Bank (NAB) announcing a plan to ‘cut off’ customers accused of being financial abusers, a practice known as ‘debanking’, which involves suspending, cancelling, or denying access to accounts.

Journalists reported that Nigel Farage had his bank account closed by Coutts, a prestigious bank catering to affluent clients, which is owned by the National Westminster Bank, a institution largely controlled by the British government since the 2008 banking crisis. As a prominent figure, Farage was instrumental in the 2016 referendum vote for Britain to leave the European Union, earning him both admiration and detestation from the public. Investigators found that Farage, who had been acquainted with Donald Trump, had voiced opposition to extreme transgender ideology and the pursuit of zero emissions, but had not been implicated in any illegal activities. Despite this, Coutts terminated his account, although the bank acknowledged that Farage had always conducted himself in a polite and courteous manner in his dealings with them.

Bank documents revealed that the institution perceived significant reputational risks in associating with N F, given his high profile and the substantial amount of adverse press surrounding him. Although he had no criminal convictions, his commentary and behaviours were deemed to be at odds with the bank’s purpose and values. The bank took issue with his comments and articles on ESG and diversity and inclusion, which did not align with their views or purpose. One document highlighted N F’s history of contentious actions, including his role in campaigning for Britain’s exit from Europe on stringent terms, his opposition to Covid restrictions, and his revived hostility towards addressing the climate emergency. The document also criticized his stance on “disinformation”, citing specific tweets in which he opposed clamping down on the spread of false information. These findings were compiled into a 40-page dossier, which was the result of extensive research and labour, funded by the bank’s depositors and shareholders, including the government, and were intentionally included in the bank’s files.

As much as Mr. Farage may not always be right, but the real issue was whether banks had the authority to scrutinize their clients’ views and deny them service if those views conflicted with those of the chief executive. Banks were actively examining the political beliefs of their clients, sparking concerns about their role in society. The chief executive of Coutts’ parent bank, Alison Rose, had explicitly stated that tackling climate change and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion were central to the bank’s purpose, but it appeared that this diversity did not extend to individuals with conservative views or those with less than $1 million to deposit. Investigations revealed that when Mr. Farage initially announced that Coutts had closed his account, the bank claimed it was due to insufficient funds, but documents obtained by Mr. Farage later proved that the account was closed for purely political reasons. Furthermore, Mr. Farage alleged that nine other banks, acting as a cartel, had refused to open accounts for him, demonstrating a disturbing trend of financial institutions suppressing freedom of opinion.

Bank refuses to open account for parental rights group opposing ‘trans’ surgeries for kids

We also uncovered that another UK-based bank, Metro Bank, had refused to open a business account for a parental rights group, Our Duty, which opposed transgender surgeries for children. The bank’s spokesman attributed the decision to commercial reasons, but the group believed it was due to their political stance. Metro Bank had recently allied itself with pro-LGBT ideology, joining most major UK banks in promoting this cause.

The actions taken against Mr. Farage and the parental rights group served as a warning to the wealthy to conform to the prevailing ideology or risk losing access to their funds. The Canadian government’s introduction of bank bail-in legislation and the potential implementation of a centralized digital currency raised concerns about the erosion of individual freedoms, particularly the ability to control one’s own body and make choices about healthcare, such as vaccine status. With the ability to withhold funds, individuals might be forced to comply with certain requirements, such as taking quarterly vaccinations, in order to access basic necessities like food and housing. As the regulator continues to crack down on debanking, it remains to be seen how this will impact the banking sector and its treatment of customers. One thing is certain, however: the era of debanking is officially over, and big banks are being held accountable for their actions.

The European Central Bank plans to launch its Digital Euro in October. This move sparks big worries about our financial freedom. One major concern is real-time tracking of every transaction. Banks can see each purchase you make, raising privacy fears. Payment blocking becomes a real threat. Imagine the government freezing your funds. This can happen if they disagree with your actions. Automatic tax deductions are another possibility. The ECB could take taxes directly from your digital wallet. Cash withdrawal limits could soon exist. Access to your own money might get restricted. The Digital Euro introduces programmable money. This means your money could have expiration dates. If you don’t spend it in time, it vanishes. They failed to sell us this system willingly. Now, they want to use fear. They’ll likely exploit a new crisis. Their goal is to force the Digital Euro onto the people. This is a financial Great Reset. Total control looms over what you buy. They’ll know where you go. They might even dictate what you eat. It’s a system of total financial surveillance. They will watch every aspect of your life. Accepting the Digital Euro is preparing for a future with no financial privacy.

There is a war on your wallet and soul

Over 60% of Europeans distrust central banks. The elite push for total control anyway. They want to control every dollar you spend. Food, gas, and kids’ toys are all on their radar. This is globalists grabbing power. It is not about helping you prosper. It is tyranny disguised as new ideas. Programmable cash lets them decide what you can buy. Want meat? Too bad, it is expired. They could block the purchase. Over 70% of central bank digital currencies test these controls. The European Central Bank is no exception. The left blindly cheers this move. They fail to see how it destroys cash. They are unaware it crushes free speech. Imagine your account frozen for a wrong tweet. This is a war on your money and freedom. Central banks could block payments they dislike. Social credit scores are a likely outcome. China already uses a similar system. Think about having your money tied to your behaviour. Step out of line, and your funds vanish. They are trying to control your life. Digital IDs linked to your money is the goal. They want to track and control everything. This is a dangerous path to total control.

CBDCS TO FACILITATE CITIZEN TRACKING AND CONTROL

The ultimate outcome of the central bank digital currency that President Biden supports, will be a digital currency that facilitates citizen tracking, control, and punishment. For example, the FBI and the Justice Department quietly moved forward with plans for a cryptocurrency enforcement team (also known as digital money cops), a virtual asset exploitation unit tasked with investigating crypto crimes and seizing virtual assets, and a crypto czar to oversee it all, weeks before the Biden Administration made headlines with its support for a government-issued digital currency. Of course, this is not surprising. The way the government works is by providing us with resources to make our lives “easier,” which also makes it simpler for them to impose laws.

The war on cash erases privacy

What then is the actual reality here? Even though living in the digital age has many benefits, such as convenience, it’s difficult to see how a cashless society that is managed through a digital wallet won’t mean the end of what little privacy we still have and expose us to the likes of data hackers, government thieves, and an all-seeing, all-knowing Orwellian corpo-governmental state. First off, by privacy, I don’t just mean doing things you don’t want other people to know about—those harmless, tiny things you do behind closed doors that are awkward or personal but not destructive. Additionally, I’m talking about matters that are extremely private and that nobody should be aware of—certainly not the government and its army of petty prefects.

CBDCs are for surveillance

A digital currency will unavoidably play a significant role in both our economy and government surveillance programs. When you combine that with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) initiatives—which are essentially corporate social media credit scores—you’ll see that we’re heading in the same direction as China in terms of digital dictatorship. Digital currency issued by a central bank can be used as a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions.

The aggressive push to roll out digital ID and CBDC

German MEP Christine Anderson says the aggressive push to roll out 15-minute cities, digital ID and CBDCs is a desperate attempt to “erect a totalitarian surveillance state” before too many people wake up.

The global trend towards the adoption of cbdcs

In fact, there is a global trend towards this switch to digital currency. More than a hundred additional nations are thinking about launching their own virtual currencies. China has already implemented a digital currency that is issued by the government. This currency not only enables the government to monitor and intercept people’s financial transactions, but it can also be used in conjunction with its social credit score system to penalise people for moral failings and social infractions (and to reward them for following government-approved behaviour). The Chinese Communist Party will be able to directly oversee and access people’s financial life using digital yuan, doing away with the need to coerce financial intermediaries. The authorities may simply suspend dissidents’ and human rights advocates’ digital wallets in a culture where people consume yuan digitally.

The war on cash erases privacy

CBDCs are for surveillance

A digital currency will unavoidably play a significant role in both our economy and government surveillance programs. When you combine that with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) initiatives—which are essentially corporate social media credit scores—you’ll see that we’re heading in the same direction as China in terms of digital dictatorship. Digital currency issued by a central bank can be used as a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions.

Cbdcs sold as a solution to crime

As a result, digital money gives the government and its business partners an easy-to-track, tabulate, mine for data, hack, hijack, and seize method of trade whenever it suits them. This drive for a digital currency fits nicely with the government’s long-term, covert campaign against cash. This so-called “war on cash” has been marketed to the public as a way to combat terrorists, drug traffickers, tax evaders, and even COVID-19 germs, much like the wars on drugs and terror. These days, having large sums of money about you may get you accused of being a criminal and linked to questionable activities. Police argue that since cash is more difficult to trace, can be used to pay illegal activities, and denies the government its cut of the transaction, it is the preferred medium of exchange for illegal transactions. Therefore, banning paper money will aid in the fight against crime and increase government revenue. The true cause of this war on cash is Big Government’s obscene attempt to seize control. People’s privacy will decrease because electronic commerce makes it easy for Big Brother to monitor our actions and prohibits those that it finds objectionable. This is how a cashless society plays straight into the hands of the government (and its corporate partners)—it is easily watched, controlled, manipulated, weaponised, and shut down.

Tech has done the heavy lifting for cbdc acceptance

The transition to a cashless society is actually not that difficult to sell to a society that is becoming more and more reliant on technology for even the most routine aspects of daily life, even in light of what we know about the government and its history of corruption, bumbling, fumbling, and data breaches, not to mention how easily technology can be used against us. Digital cash, or the ability to pay with a debit card, credit card, or cell phone, is quickly becoming the de facto currency of the American police state, in a similar manner to how citizens have chosen to be monitored by the government thanks to the convenience of GPS and mobile phones. It was once predicted that by 2020, smartphones will completely replace cash and credit cards. Since then, an increasing number of establishments, such as several airlines, hotels, car-rental agencies, restaurants, and retail outlets, have implemented no-cash rules. Even churches and the homeless use digital currency in Sweden.

The war on cash erases privacy

What then is the actual reality here? Even though living in the digital age has many benefits, such as convenience, it’s difficult to see how a cashless society that is managed through a digital wallet won’t mean the end of what little privacy we still have and expose us to the likes of data hackers, government thieves, and an all-seeing, all-knowing Orwellian corpo-governmental state. First off, by privacy, I don’t just mean doing things you don’t want other people to know about—those harmless, tiny things you do behind closed doors that are awkward or personal but not destructive. Additionally, I’m talking about matters that are extremely private and that nobody should be aware of—certainly not the government and its army of petty prefects.

Cbdcs usher in complete control

Second, it’s already evident how simple it will be for government agents to control digital wallets for their own benefit in order to follow you about, keep an eye on your conversations and actions, and eventually shut you down. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security’s Electronic Recovery and Access to Data devices, which enable police to not only find out the balance of any magnetic-stripe card but also freeze and seize any funds on pre-paid money cards, are making civil asset forfeiture schemes even more profitable for police agencies. When the digital money police arrive in full force, those numbers should soar.

Third, the government will have complete control over the economy and financial interactions with its citizens if it issues digital money. Although the government can boast about how easy it is to transfer stimulus funds into individuals’ accounts, such a system might also lead to what economists refer to as “negative interest rates.” Instead of restricting it with a zero bound barrier on interest rates, the government may decide to impose negative interest rates on digital accounts in order to slow down economic development. Fourth, the adoption of a digital currency will expose Americans and their bank accounts to even higher levels of financial risk from both government agents and hackers. The UK’s Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, James Bowler, struggles to explain what problems CBDCs are actually going to solve.

Fifth, in practically every area of our life, digital authoritarianism will rewrite the definition of freedom. Once more, we need to turn to China to see what lies ahead. Chinese authorities employ technology in more subdued but no less effective methods to maintain population control throughout the nation. By using digital money, the central bank will be able to monitor and regulate people’s financial transactions. China is constructing “safe cities,” combining information from invasive monitoring systems to forecast and stop anything from natural disasters and political unrest to fires. The government thinks that these intrusions, together with administrative measures like preventing access to services for those on a blacklist, will encourage individuals to engage in “positive behaviours,” like exercising and adhering to laws more closely.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe