In recent years, the United States has witnessed a disturbing trend: the rise of “de-banking,” where financial institutions revoke services from individuals or organizations based on their political affiliations or ideological stances. Two high-profile examples illustrate the power of this practice to silence dissent. During the Obama administration, Operation Choke Point targeted businesses deemed “high-risk,” including firearm dealers and payday lenders. While marketed as an anti-fraud initiative, the program pressured banks to sever ties with these businesses—many of which were legal and legitimate enterprises. Although officially discontinued in 2017, its legacy of financial discrimination lingers, establishing a dangerous precedent.
Today, the concept has been revived under what has been dubbed Operation Choke Point 2.0. This time, the focus is on the cryptocurrency industry. Reports suggest that U.S. regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Reserve, are pressuring banks to distance themselves from crypto businesses, effectively cutting off their access to traditional banking services. This alleged coordinated effort has already led to account closures and operational difficulties for numerous crypto firms, hindering innovation and growth in the sector.
The parallels between the original Operation Choke Point and its alleged sequel are striking. In both cases, financial institutions are being used as tools of ideological enforcement, allowing the government to target disfavored industries without passing new laws or facing judicial scrutiny. This strategy creates a chilling effect on industries and individuals who operate on the fringes of mainstream political or social acceptance, effectively punishing dissent and innovation without due process.
De-Banking as Government Censorship by Proxy
One of the most troubling aspects of de-banking is how it allows governments to impose censorship and punishment without directly violating the Constitution. The First Amendment protects against government suppression of speech, and due process ensures that punitive actions must be transparent, justified, and subject to judicial review. However, when governments pressure private banks to deny services to certain individuals or groups, they sidestep these safeguards.
This is not theoretical. Operation Choke Point serves as a textbook example. The program leveraged the regulatory power of the Department of Justice to coerce banks into cutting ties with politically disfavored industries. No laws were passed, no court cases were heard, and no evidence of wrongdoing was required. Instead, businesses were quietly blacklisted, losing access to banking services essential for their operations. The result was de facto government censorship without the constitutional accountability required for such actions.
Operation Choke Point 2.0 shows how this same strategy can be adapted for new targets. The cryptocurrency industry, which represents a significant challenge to centralized financial and regulatory systems, has become the latest victim. Crypto firms report that their accounts are being closed without explanation, and banks are facing increased scrutiny for maintaining relationships with these businesses. By pressuring financial institutions behind closed doors, regulators avoid public accountability while crippling an entire sector of the economy.
This tactic isn’t limited to specific industries; it reflects a broader strategy of control. By outsourcing censorship and punishment to private institutions, governments can suppress dissent, innovation, and alternative viewpoints without the legal or political backlash that would arise from direct intervention.
Cancel Culture and the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism
To understand the ideological underpinnings of de-banking, it’s essential to trace the roots of cancel culture itself. The phenomenon didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Its foundations lie in the theories of the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism, which reimagined Marxist ideology for the cultural and intellectual realms rather than the purely economic sphere.
The Frankfurt School theorists, including Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Max Horkheimer, argued that Western civilization—rooted in traditional values, religion, and free markets—was the primary obstacle to achieving Marxist goals. Rather than focusing on class struggle and economic revolution, they advocated for the deconstruction of Western cultural norms. This strategy relied on undermining societal pillars such as family, religion, and free speech, replacing them with ideological conformity.
Cancel culture is a direct descendant of this approach. It operates as a mechanism to enforce ideological purity, ostracize dissenters, and suppress alternative viewpoints. De-banking takes this even further, using financial exclusion to destroy the livelihoods of those who challenge the cultural orthodoxy. This is Cultural Marxism in practice: dismantling the cultural and economic autonomy of individuals to reshape society according to its ideological framework.
The Frankfurt School’s theories provide the playbook for modern cancel culture, and de-banking is one of its most potent tools. By targeting financial systems, it combines the cultural hegemony envisioned by the Frankfurt School with the economic control necessary to enforce compliance.
The Chinese Social Credit System: A Warning from the Future
If the de-banking trend continues unchecked, the United States could find itself on the path toward a financial and ideological regime similar to China’s social credit system. The Chinese government uses this system to monitor and control its citizens’ behavior, assigning scores based on compliance with state-approved norms. Those with low scores can be denied access to basic services such as loans, travel, and even education.
While the United States is far from implementing a formal social credit system, de-banking represents a significant step in that direction. The principle is the same: using access to essential services as leverage to enforce ideological conformity. In China, it’s the state that controls the system; in the U.S., it’s a combination of government pressure and private institutions acting as ideological enforcers.
The chilling parallels cannot be ignored. De-banking allows financial institutions to decide who gets to participate in the economy, effectively punishing those who hold “unacceptable” views. If this practice becomes normalized, it’s not difficult to imagine a future where financial access is contingent on adhering to specific ideological standards, creating a de facto social credit system in the West.
The Constitutional Crisis of De-Banking
De-banking represents a fundamental violation of constitutional principles. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, yet de-banking enables ideological suppression without direct government involvement, creating a loophole that undermines these protections. The denial of financial services based on political or social views is not just a private matter—it is a violation of the principles that safeguard liberty.
Moreover, the lack of due process in these decisions is a direct affront to constitutional protections. In a just society, punitive actions require evidence, transparency, and the opportunity for defense. De-banking offers none of these safeguards. It punishes individuals and organizations without trial, explanation, or accountability, effectively making financial institutions judge, jury, and executioner.
By allowing governments to exert influence over private banks, de-banking creates a dangerous precedent. It establishes a system where constitutional rights can be bypassed in favor of ideological enforcement, eroding the rule of law and the principle of equal treatment under it.
Implications for Freedom and Western Civilization
The implications of de-banking extend far beyond individual cases. Western civilization is built on principles of free enterprise, personal liberty, and the rule of law. De-banking undermines all three. By denying individuals and organizations access to financial systems, it erodes economic independence and punishes ideological dissent. This creates a chilling effect, where people are afraid to speak or act contrary to the prevailing narrative for fear of losing their financial security.
This is not a coincidence. Cultural Marxism, which seeks to dismantle the cultural and institutional pillars of Western society, finds in de-banking a powerful tool. By weaponizing financial systems, it can enforce conformity and suppress opposition without the need for overt legal or political action.
The Fight Against De-Banking
The fight against de-banking is, ultimately, a fight for freedom. Public awareness is critical. People must understand that de-banking is not a neutral financial decision but an ideological weapon. Legal and regulatory measures are also essential to prevent financial institutions from denying services based on political or ideological grounds. Transparency, accountability, and due process must become non-negotiable standards in the financial industry.
At the same time, alternative systems must be developed to counter centralized financial control. Decentralized networks, independent banks, and cryptocurrencies offer promising solutions to protect financial freedom and resist ideological coercion. Building and supporting these systems is not just practical—it is a moral imperative.
De-banking is cancel culture’s final frontier—a tool that combines the chilling effects of ostracization with the devastating power of financial exclusion. Rooted in Cultural Marxism and mirroring the oppressive potential of systems like China’s social credit model, it is an assault on the principles that define Western civilization and the Constitution. If we fail to resist this trend, we risk not only losing access to our financial systems but also the freedoms and values that make society worth defending. The fight to preserve financial freedom is, in truth, a fight for the soul of our civilization.