Opinion
Nigel Farage urges using multiple bank accounts, gold assets to protect against debanking
From LifeSiteNews
Debanking is increasingly being used globally to punish political dissidents such as the Brexit leader, who recommends using a variety of backup methods to guard against the possibility.
Brexit leader Nigel Farage has urged people to take out multiple bank accounts and own hard gold assets in order to protect against debanking, which has been inflicted as punishment on political dissidents in recent years, including on Farage himself.
In an interview with author and entrepreneur Rob Moore, Farage noted that the pretext for his being debanked — being “politically exposed” as someone with beliefs contrary to the bank’s values, is “nonsense,” because his family members were also debanked.
Asked who is responsible for this “control of the politically exposed” and the removal of cash, Farage listed major global and banking institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), the Bank of England, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations (UN).
“This is globalism, folks. Globalism is about unelected bodies taking ever more power, which diminishes the power of the nation’s state and therefore diminishes our ability to hire and fire those who are making our laws,” the maverick politician continued.
He stressed that the beneficiaries of globalism include big business, and “the bigger the business, the more they benefit,” one of the key facts he has learned throughout his years in politics.
When prompted for ideas about how to combat globalism, Farage first said it is “very important” to refrain from voting for those who back it. He added that we can use cash more — enough to signal that “we can’t function without it.”
“Protect yourselves … Make sure you’ve got more than one bank account,” he went on, adding that he suggests going so far as to take out three bank accounts.
He also suggested owning assets that cannot be taken away, including both the physical assets of gold coin and cryptocurrency. He conceded that cryptocurrencies can have “unreliable providers,” but because it allows people to be “in charge of” their money, “it’s the ultimate individual sovereignty.”
“The tax man can’t take it. The bank can’t close you down,” said Farage, pointing out that when Canada’s government froze the bank accounts of Canadian truckers who were protesting draconian COVID mandates, bitcoin was their saving grace.
“The only way they were fed and watered during that protest was through cryptocurrency,” Farage said.
“And if you’re not on that road yet, don’t be embarrassed by it. Most people aren’t on that road yet, most people don’t quite get why this is so significant,” he continued. “But I know from my visits to America that in Miami you can now buy everything from a Ferrari to a cup of coffee using Bitcoin or Ethereum. Don’t think this is going to go away.”
A common thread of those debanked in recent years is espousing anti-globalist views. For example, last year, the co-head of the anti-globalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) said that he was debanked for his political views. In 2018, Deutsche Bank terminated all accounts of AfD politician Nicolaus Fest, and in 2020, the Direktbank ING closed the bank accounts of the head of the AfD Thuringia, Björn Höcke, as well as his wife’s accounts. In both cases, the banks refused to give a reason for their decision.
We’re in Red Alert!
How many lives were saved by LifeSiteNews’ coverage of the Covid vaccines? How many escaped the HORROR of lifelong injury? Those that called us “conspiracy theorists” are now admitting that LifeSiteNews told you the TRUTH – and that they told you LIES. WE MUST RAISE THE REMAINING 2/3 OF OUR TARGET IN ORDER TO KEEP OPERATIONS RUNNING. Without YOUR GIFT, everything hangs in the balance.
From the Fraser Institute
As Republicans and Democrats make their final pitch to voters, they’ve converged on some common themes. Kamala Harris wants to regulate the price of food. Donald Trump wants to regulate the price of credit. Harris wants the tax code to favour the 2.5 per cent of workers who earn tips. So does Trump. Harris wants the government to steer more labour and capital into manufacturing. And so does Trump.
With each of these proposals, the candidates think the United States would be better off if the government made more economic decisions and—by implication—if individual citizens made fewer economic decisions. Both should pay closer attention to Zimbabwe. Yes, Zimbabwe.
Why does a country with abundant natural resources, rich culture and unparalleled beauty have one-sixth the average income of neighbouring Botswana? While we’re at it, why do twice as many children die in infancy in Azerbaijan as across the border in Georgia? Why do Hungarians work 20 per cent longer than their Austrian neighbours but earn 45 per cent less? Why is extreme poverty 200 times more common in Laos than across the Mekong River in Thailand?
Or how about this one: Why were more than one-quarter of Estonians formerly exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution when the country was socialist while today nearly every Estonian breathes clean air in what is ranked the cleanest country in the world.
These are anecdotes. However, the plural of anecdote is data, and through careful and systematic study of the data, we can learn what works and what doesn’t. Unfortunately, the populist economic policies in vogue among Democrats and Republicans do not work.
What does work is economic freedom.
Economic freedoms are a subset of human freedoms. When people have more economic freedom, they are allowed to make more of their own economic choices—choices about work, about buying and selling goods and services, about acquiring and using property, and about forming contracts with others.
For nearly 30 years, the Fraser Institute has been measuring economic freedom across countries. On one hand, governments can stop people from making their own economic choices through taxes, regulations, barriers to trade and manipulation of the value of money (see the proposals of Harris and Trump above). On the other hand, governments can enable individual economic choice by protecting people and their property.
The index published in Fraser’s annual Economic Freedom of the World report incorporates 45 indicators to measure how governments either prevent or enable individual economic choice. The result reveals the degree of economic freedom in 165 countries and territories worldwide, with data going back to 1970.
According to the latest report, comparatively wealthy Botswanans rank 84 places ahead of Zimbabweans in terms of the economic freedom their government permits them. Georgians rank 107 places ahead of Azerbaijanis, Thais rank 60 places ahead of Laotians, and Austrians are 32 places ahead of Hungarians.
The benefits of economic freedom go far beyond anecdotes and rankings. As Estonia—once one of the least economically free places in the world and now among the freest—dramatically shows, freer countries tend not only to be more prosperous but greener and healthier.
In fact, economists and other social scientists have conducted nearly 1,000 studies using the index to assess the effect of economic freedom on different aspects of human wellbeing. Their statistical comparisons include hundreds and sometimes thousands of data points and carefully control for other factors like geography, natural resources and disease environment.
Their results overwhelmingly support the idea that when people are permitted more economic freedom, they prosper. Those who live in freer places enjoy higher and faster-growing incomes, better health, longer life, cleaner environments, more tolerance, less violence, lower infant mortality and less poverty.
Economic freedom isn’t the only thing that matters for prosperity. Research suggests that culture and geography matter as well. While policymakers can’t always change people’s attitudes or move mountains, they can permit their citizens more economic freedom. If more did so, more people would enjoy the living standards of Botswana or Estonia and fewer people would be stuck in poverty.
As for the U.S., it remains relatively free and prosperous. Whatever its problems, decades of research cast doubt on the notion that America would be better off with policies that chip away at the ability of Americans to make their own economic choices.
Author:
From Reclaim The Net
This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.
What started out as the EU’s “voluntary code of practice” concerning “disinformation” – affecting tech/social media companies – is now set to turn into a mandatory code of conduct for the most influential and widely-used ones.
The news was revealed by the Irish media regulator, specifically an official of its digital services, Paul Gordon, who spoke to journalists in Brussels. The EU Commission has yet to confirm that January will be the date when the current code will be “formalized” in this way.
The legislation that would enable the “transition” is the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which critics often refer to as the “EU online censorship law,” the enforcement of which started in February of this year.
The “voluntary” code is at this time signed by 44 tech companies, and should it become mandatory in January 2025, it will apply to those the EU defines as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) (with at least 45 million monthly active users in the 27-nation bloc).
Currently, the number of such platforms is said to be 25.
In its present form, the DSA’s provisions obligate online platforms to carry out “disinformation”-related risk assessments and reveal what measures they are taking to mitigate any risks revealed by these assessments.
But when the code switches from “voluntary” to mandatory, these obligations will also include other requirements: demonetizing the dissemination of “disinformation”; platforms, civil society groups, and fact-checkers “effectively cooperating” during elections, once again to address “disinformation” – and, “empowering” fact-checkers.
This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.
The code was first introduced (in its “voluntary” form) in 2022, with Google, Meta, and TikTok among the prominent signatories – while these rules originate from a “strengthened” EU Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the Commission’s Guidance issued in May 2021.
“It is for the signatories to decide which commitments they sign up to and it is their responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their commitments’ implementation,” the EU said at the time – that would have been the “voluntary” element, while the Commission said the time it had not “endorsed” the code.
It appears the EC is now about to “endorse” the code, and then some – there are active preparations to make it mandatory.
IRS whistleblowers confirm agencies knew the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now
10 reasons Donald Trump is headed for a landslide victory over Kamala Harris
Indigenous Catholic Priest questions “The murder of 215 Indigenous Children” at Kamloops Indian Residential School
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now
-
Energy2 days agoOttawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
-
National2 days agoCommittee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference
-
National2 days agoTrudeau government introduces bill that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers of charity status
-
Alberta2 days agoLesson for Ottawa—don’t bite the hand that feeds you
-
John Campbell2 days agoProminent COVID jab critic examines the amazing evidence for the Shroud of Turin
-
Crime2 days agoDespite recent bail reform flip-flops, Canada is still more dangerous than we’d prefer
-
COVID-191 day agoDr John Campbell urges a complete moratorium on mRNA vaccines