What's notable about this incident is that internal documents show that executives at Coutts were concerned about Farage being a customer because his stated and assumed positions didn't line up with their values. One might think that a bank's highest value was the trust they earned from customers who kept their money there. One might think.
Something that has become apparent in recent years is that institutions and organizations across the board, including many for-profit businesses, have subscribed to the same general set of values. Progressive values. And the whole notion of inherent rights has become unfashionable. The average person is privileged, has privileges which can and should be taken away from time to time. You don't want to overindulge the house pets.
The level of hostility to people who were not too long ago revered as good customers and necessary voters varies. The true vanguard is Antifa, who apparently see Nazis and collaborators on every street corner. But even short of that most individuals don't hold as much value as favored political causes do, which means that once unthinkable acts against them are on the table. That leads to a very low-trust society.
2 comments:
You're right that the outrage factor was high with this incident having happened to Nigel Farage especially in consideration of the fact the Canadian government closed the accounts of people who had donated money in support of the truckers protest about covid lockdowns. Something like that will make you sit up and take notice.
While it's true that the Coutts Bank has admitted it supports a progressive philosophy it appears some young decision making turk(s) made it their business to call out Farage for “xenophobic, chauvinist and racist” rhetoric and closed his account. That's a bit strong and also somewhat nerve wracking for anyone else who might ever have posted a negative opinion about almost anything. (Refer to above example.)
Here's a somewhat satirical piece from the Economist. The idea that this particular banking rule was designed as a restraint against politicians accepting bribes sounds like one that could be used to good effect in the US.
As for the Quillette article, I opened it first thing this morning and read some of it before deciding to wait until later to finish. Imagine my surprise to find it's now been closed to non-subscribers. All I can say is that I was agreeing with much of Stratton's reasoning - it certainly makes sense that gay people wouldn't necessarily be tolerant of radical trans agendas. Of course I never found my way to the outcome he was proposing as a solution (I checked a number of places to see if there were hints).
But you're right, the Establishment couldn't be making it more obvious they don't actually need the Public these days - our votes, our money, our health, and our opinions are all subservient to Big Finance. Not a very trustworthy environment.
ps: That was a great Lou Rawls song.
What the Farage incident and the official reaction to the convoy have in common is that they were both examples of financial warfare against people expressing non-approved messages. The scary thing is not just what's being done but who's taking part in it. Some people and institutions are supposed to be honest brokers. They're turning out to be very far from that.
Coutts is a high-end bank, apparently. In any case Farage seems to have substantial savings and a number of revenue streams. So it's not like they made him destitute or have the ability to do so. Most people don't have those kinds of resources, though. The point seems to be to intimidate dissidents into silence by showing what happens to those who step out of line.
Bribes can come in many forms and many of them are slick enough not to look like bribes. That's one of the reasons few politicians face consequences.
The idea that gays and lesbians are obligated to support any and every demand from the Greater LGBTQIA++++++ complex is offensive but apparently widespread. I've forgotten exactly what the author's suggestion was. I might go back and look again later, if that remains possible.
You're right that it's very untrustworthy out there. There are tacit and explicit agreements which make living in society possible. If those are all abandoned, mostly by the more powerful, what replaces them?
Lou Rawls is a very enjoyable performer. That song is a terrific example of humorous monologue combined with music.
Post a Comment