12-03-2024, 11:36 AM
It's an amazing thing, the development of a means to cripple a banking customers ability to function in any society where money is the currency of "free speech."
It started way back in the 90's (and perhaps earlier) in the musings of the elite's constructs of 'global' control.
The principle was simple enough. To render your target unable to operate within a larger community by disallowing them to 'bank' their funds, or move them in the processes of payments. Of course, "banks" don't call it "de-banking"... they have other words to conceal the cause from the effect. They refer to it as de-risking, (the closure of people's or organizations' bank accounts by banks that perceive the account holders to pose a financial, legal, regulatory, or reputational risk to the bank.") The targets of de-banking are now referred as "PEPS (Politically Exposed Persons.)"
There were numerous criminal enterprises that needed to 'appear' legitimate. Issuing checks for goods or services, receiving funds for business activity. In order to stop this from happening, banks appeared to have inherited the responsibility of refusing service to those enterprises. Sex workers, illicit drug businesses, some gambling and 'unauthorized' organizations... suddenly found themselves having to operate exclusively on a cash basis... thus limiting their scope of operation...
Which incidentally made "money laundering" operations only possible within the bank. It seems to stand to reason, given that the bank owns literally every single unit of currency ever created.
Except one small immovable point... who 'decides' which accounts get 'de-banked?' And once the decision is implemented... to whom can one appeal? Or does bank sovereignty supersede any citizen's right of redress?
As with all things 'global' the deciders are far removed from the lives they affect. While the idea of curtailing financial shenanigans is sound... is the 'agency' to make such a act happen has been thoroughly abused.
From Trudeau in Canada issuing a crippling gut punch to Canadian citizens protesting his administrations policies, to "out of favor" tech entrepreneurs, the list of questionable victims has grown massively. In the UK, citizens running afoul of authority - for whatever reason - have grown from some 45,000 in 2017 to over 300,00 in 2022, that's almost 1,000 accounts per day. In the US, all one has to do is oppose the policies of a strident administration... and the threat looms... the banks being the thugs of the scenario.
Recently the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has made headway into the 'exploration' of this issue... albeit only within the digital realm. It seems all a misdirection to me... because while the public (PR) posture is one of 'protecting consumers' what it actually does is codify the bank's unilateral power directly into digital businesses who had never been subject to being compelled to 'de-bank' customers. They are making sure that the bank's 'legal' criteria applies even in a non-banking institution.
From this we will see people no longer being able to have access to larger commercial activities which handle more that 50 million transaction per year (think Amazon, PayPal, etc.)... eliminating the need for banks to directly take on the role of the 'heavy hand' of the establishment.
Here's a short video which discusses this from a specific perspective... but the sense of the idea is there:
It started way back in the 90's (and perhaps earlier) in the musings of the elite's constructs of 'global' control.
The principle was simple enough. To render your target unable to operate within a larger community by disallowing them to 'bank' their funds, or move them in the processes of payments. Of course, "banks" don't call it "de-banking"... they have other words to conceal the cause from the effect. They refer to it as de-risking, (the closure of people's or organizations' bank accounts by banks that perceive the account holders to pose a financial, legal, regulatory, or reputational risk to the bank.") The targets of de-banking are now referred as "PEPS (Politically Exposed Persons.)"
There were numerous criminal enterprises that needed to 'appear' legitimate. Issuing checks for goods or services, receiving funds for business activity. In order to stop this from happening, banks appeared to have inherited the responsibility of refusing service to those enterprises. Sex workers, illicit drug businesses, some gambling and 'unauthorized' organizations... suddenly found themselves having to operate exclusively on a cash basis... thus limiting their scope of operation...
Which incidentally made "money laundering" operations only possible within the bank. It seems to stand to reason, given that the bank owns literally every single unit of currency ever created.
Except one small immovable point... who 'decides' which accounts get 'de-banked?' And once the decision is implemented... to whom can one appeal? Or does bank sovereignty supersede any citizen's right of redress?
As with all things 'global' the deciders are far removed from the lives they affect. While the idea of curtailing financial shenanigans is sound... is the 'agency' to make such a act happen has been thoroughly abused.
From Trudeau in Canada issuing a crippling gut punch to Canadian citizens protesting his administrations policies, to "out of favor" tech entrepreneurs, the list of questionable victims has grown massively. In the UK, citizens running afoul of authority - for whatever reason - have grown from some 45,000 in 2017 to over 300,00 in 2022, that's almost 1,000 accounts per day. In the US, all one has to do is oppose the policies of a strident administration... and the threat looms... the banks being the thugs of the scenario.
Recently the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has made headway into the 'exploration' of this issue... albeit only within the digital realm. It seems all a misdirection to me... because while the public (PR) posture is one of 'protecting consumers' what it actually does is codify the bank's unilateral power directly into digital businesses who had never been subject to being compelled to 'de-bank' customers. They are making sure that the bank's 'legal' criteria applies even in a non-banking institution.
From this we will see people no longer being able to have access to larger commercial activities which handle more that 50 million transaction per year (think Amazon, PayPal, etc.)... eliminating the need for banks to directly take on the role of the 'heavy hand' of the establishment.
Here's a short video which discusses this from a specific perspective... but the sense of the idea is there:
