This is the uncomfortable truth with those wanting to cut themselves off from the grid and the state. Beside international waters and Antarctica, subject to international treaties, every bit of land on Earth has an owner, either private or the state. At some point you are going to have to engage in the financial and banking system and/or engage with a state that wants its taxes due. It has been the case for a millennium, which is why the Domesday Book was a thing.
The only example I have known to be anywhere near a success is the Principality of Sealand and even then, you'll still see protest from the UK Government over its existence. Even pirate radio stations broadcasting in international waters to the UK and Netherlands didn't stop them being in reach of the law. Someone had to supply them with drinking water and food.
Just like the Pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in maximising your life expectancy but also keeping you ill for profit, therapists also have a vested interest in maximising your time in therapy but finding issues that only they can fix - for cash.
You're seeing this in real time with lonely, single men post Tate and that's the goal seam they're mining for profit.
Bear in mind that there is currently a push by psychotherapists to profit from the gold seam of lonely, single men post Tate. Which might be behind this messaging in order to monetise and profit from such men. Problem. Reaction. Solution (and profit).
There is talk it could become one of the most successful movies in history - Titanic levels of success. Even the conservative commentators I know of, a good number of them are coming round to the movie after watching it twice. And that's the thing, unlike Titanic or Fifty Shades of Grey where people watch once and then rewatch later at home, people are repeat watching the movie, including the said conservative commentators.
It largely succeeded in April 2020 however you can't keep it up forever without brutal oppression of the public. Even the CCP had to swallow that pill. Thankfully these measures fell everywhere but they will try again and expect different results. But the compliance rate for a measure "for your own and others safety" is practically everyone.
I was shocked at how easy it was to get people to comply with instructions from Government. Even the experts were shocked at how easy it was - they legitimately believed that authoritarianism would never work in a liberal western country - yet virtually every member of the public agreed. Which brings in a troubling and uncomfortable thought - the majority of people have an authoritarian streak and a minority (around 20% in the various polls) would have us in permanent authoritarian measures and controls.
Another thing I note is that while people say they support concepts such as equality and liberty to self-reported studies, in private, they oppose such concepts. The reason why they say one thing and believe another can be put down to social desirability bias - people tell researchers and surveyors what they want to hear based on how others will judge them, not their true beliefs. Same thing happens with dating preferences.
The same tactic to get us to agree to total control through fear is now being played with the climate. We can only hope that the same tactics fall in the same way as they did with lockdown and measures, even if it is going to be short term pain.
It will be banned before it gets to the consumer.
The left will want it banned because it is deemed a sexist technology that will be deemed a threat to women and embolden misogynists. They consider all male forms of sexuality to be discriminatory and violence against women. They believe that the place for single men is to simp because they're not worthy to be in a relationship.
The right will want it banned because they consider all solo acts of sexuality and the tools needed for a single individual to achieve that - porn, prostitution and bots to be depraved and grossly immoral. They believe that the only place for sexuality is in the bedroom between two adults.
The centrists will stand on a mixture between the two.
Age verification will ban pornography (look what happened in any state that implemented it), everyone will adopt the Nordic model for prostitution (prosecute the buyer not the seller), ban bots and AI used for sexual acts and redefine in law the definition of consensual acts to require at least two consenting adults.
It's a case of the mean girls finding your presence "uncomfortable" and behaviour gives them the "ick", the jocks back them up using strength by numbers and they all go to Principal Biden, Principal Trudeau or Headmaster Sunak who promptly expels you because everyone deems you a threat to others safety and security.
He promotes the concept of a man being dominant of his partner, he does not support bachelorhood as a avenue a man should go down in life. There's a reason why he gets no support from the bachelor commentators and communities such as MGTOW.
It's already happening. The attempt to suggest in mainstream parlance that if you are in a relationship, you don't have time to dedicate to video games hence by their logic, (console/PC) gamers are incels. Recently, there's been a narrative push that gamers are being radicalised by in-game chat and ramping up the violent rhetoric between one another that the media claims will spill into real world violence. No doubt a well known individual who we will disavow will be made the leader of gamers in time, if they don't just default to Andrew Tate.
The ironic thing being is that Tate denounces bachelorhood by choice or not. Tate is being made the "leader of incels" because the media assumes the whole spectrum between Tate and the black pill is one and the same.
The way its going now - did he commit any form of violence against himself or others and is he without a partner? Then you have what would be considered an violent incel incident.
Because the definition of incel has been extrapolated and watered down so much that it could easily fit millions of men as opposed to thousands on a closed incel forum.
The media likes to constantly bring up the case of Jake Davison. Turned out if I recall, his heinous acts were not linked to involuntary celibacy in a subsequent investigation of his motives, but the media likes to play cognitive dissonance with this uncomfortable finding and ignore it anyway.
I share your frustration because a lot of single men with no criminal violent tendency in their body are going to be caught up in this moral panic and in terms of surveillance, may not even be aware of it and would never consider themselves a criminal, never mind a perceived terror threat. Possibly many of them twenty years ago parroted the line of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" with a smirk on their face believing they'll never be targeted because they are a law-abiding citizen.
Most individuals don't understand about the issues of single men because they find a partner in high school or in their early adult years and just assume everyone is the same and anything that does not adhere to that path in life is abnormal and a threat to social cohesion. So much so now that psychiatrists have noticed this trend and are using the Andrew Tate controversy to drum up new business from single men in order to make money from them to "deradicalise" them and get them back into the dating game. There is also the recent pushback against the manosphere, most recently Pearl Davis is at the forefront of this pushback.
My concern is that if this kicked off in America and Canada before reaching the UK, then this will only spread to other countries. Problem is, no-one will stand up for single men because the concept of being single for an extended period of time by choice or not outside of bachelor communities is one that carries a stigma, something to be fixed and something to be ashamed of. Which unfortunately means no-one will speak out to put their head above the parapet or defend them.
It takes time to action a Subject Access Request and then go public. Otherwise if he jumped the gun the claims he was debanked because he was skint would have stuck and it would have made it far more difficult to make his case. He had to play the waiting game before going public with this.
Non YouTube link: https://piped.lunar.icu/watch?v=C5ZQ3pC_HQU
TL;DW - Farage has been given the papers linked to the Subject Access Request he made to Coutts, part of the RBS group, 38.6% of which is owned by the taxpayer. He describes the file as a "Stasi-style surveillance report". He was subject to an "annual review" by their "Reputation Committee" including monthly press checks and kept records of his social media posts.
It demonstrates that they waited until the end of March when his mortgage was due to be paid off in full. They closed his account in April because his views "do not align with our values".
It mentions Russia 144 times, Brexit 86 times and Politically Exposed Person (PEP) 10 times. No direct or indirect links to Russia and Putin was found as stated in the file. His support and interview of Novak Djokovic, a known critic and refuser of the mRNA vaccine, and Donald Trump was also mentioned. He also had his retweet of a joke made by Ricky Gervais on trans women mentioned. As well as the prospect that his political views generate "adverse publicity" in relation to the above as well as Net Zero, xenophobic, racist and LGBT critical views using "extreme, hateful and emotive language" and their concern of how Farage would react when his account is closed by going public and negatively criticising them. No laws were broken.
Farage ends with a warning that Refinitiv who run World-Check, a database of PEPs and higher-rated risk individuals will work with the banks to monitor their customers social media accounts for violations of their values to allow for an account closure and that we are heading toward a Chinese style social credit system.
One white pill (depending on what you think of the Government) to end on, there is going to be Government intervention by Andrew Griffith MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in preventing debanking.
And naturally, the BBC lied about the claim that he had been debanked because he didn't have enough money to sustain the account. The document itself confirms he was not debanked because of that. Needless to say, the BBC is doubling down by blaming the Financial Times for giving it false information. Not a good look for the BBC Ministry of Truth, sorry, I meant, BBC Verify.
And Farage has been denied service by ten banks now.
That was the other thing that was being pushed, the demand for privacy to be abolished "for your safety" with the usual line of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" that's being trotted out for over 20 years to justify this intrusion into your private life.
I would expect another attempt to push for the criminalisation of Virtual Private Networks for residential use or at the very least, have the payment processors refuse service to VPN's in the UK in the same regard that life has been made difficult for porn websites to get paid.
So in the minds of the authors we live in a matriarchy where women run the world's economy but we also live in a patriarchy where men oppress women and prevent them from achieving economic success.
Which is it?