Muh Murican Free Market: Chase Bank Commences Purge Of Cuckservative Accounts

Ask someone who clings to Drumpf and the GOP about economics, and they’ll more than likely tell you that a free market is the best market, and any sort of regulation on companies amounts to evil SOCIALISM that belongs in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Venezuela.

Problem is, however, that massive corporations in modern America don’t exactly see freedoms going both ways.


Chase Bank is shutting down accounts of people and organizations with controversial political views, according to an undercover investigation by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

O’Keefe’s latest probe found that Chase, without explanation, abruptly closed the account of a political activist that had existed for 15 years in good standing.

Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys activist group and owner of a website that sells provocative political merchandise, spoke to Chase representatives who could not explain why his business account was about to be terminated.

Tarrio recorded the calls and provided them to Project Veritas.

Chase banker Marcel Smith told Tarrio: “I see nothing that indicates any reason why the account should be closed. I don’t see any outstanding transactions or anything ridiculous.”

Smith noted that his bank typically gives its customers a reason for account closures.

“I’ve never seen them not give a response to someone whose account they had closed,” the Chase employee said.

But Project Veritas followed up and spoke with an employee working in Chase Corporate Global Media Relations who acknowledged the bank makes political judgments about its customers.

I personally like to browse the likes of Quora, and one of the more common questions I see on my feed consists of Americans asking affluent Europeans how they put up with the “socialism” that much of the continent practices – note that common programs like college tuition assistance, paid maternity leave, and basic healthcare amounts to Communism in the minds of many Cuckservatives.

My personal answer would be that Europe never truly lost its sense of blood and soil – pozzed though many countries may be. Even the worst Swede, for example, still feels a kinship with those Swedes less fortunate than him, and rarely takes serious offense at having to pay his fair share to aid the rest of society.

To use another example, even in the darkest years of the Weimar Republic, industrialists and non-Jewish business owners still sought to maintain the German Welfare State for those less able to enjoy material comforts – said industrialists also had little issue with the rise of National Socialism once guarantees of private property were made.

Here in America, however, the poison of individualism eventually triumphed over a sense of community and common heritage – Conservatism stamping out the last vestiges of Populism proved to be the final deathblow once it gained traction in areas like the South and Midwest.

Gone were the populist cries for infrastructure improvement and gone was the demand for a Progressive State to take control of those who would use their wealth and power to oppress and exploit those less financially secure than themselves.

In its place appeared a disordered mess of dog-eat-dog Crony Capitalism and corruption that guaranteed success for those who knew the right people, but damned the peasants to misery, debt slavery, and arbitrary decisions on issues ranging from salary to definitions of wrong-think.

What we see today with bank censorship is just one more symptom of a terminally-ill system that will take and take until it hits a wall.

About Marcus Cicero 593 Articles
Proud White Man, devoted husband and father, and Occidental Dissent contributor.


  1. I don’t understand how this is supposed to be a critique of free markets.

    Conversely, it seems like just one more counter-example to low-brow economic criticism we often hear in national-socialist circles, namely: in free markets, corporations will always give up their principles over time because they’re so greedy, profit-hungry, and in need of economic survival, that they’re doing anything they can to rope in more and more customers, principles be damned.

    And yet, this seems like one more example of the exact opposite. Corporations *do*, routinely, ply their powers for ideological reasons. Far from losing ideological potency, they seem to be getting more and more brazen. (Examples here can be multiplied – from NASCAR banning the Confederate Flag, to Budweiser supporting homosexual agendas), despite the hand-waving of national-socialists on the internet, it seems corporations have no problem sticking to their principles at the expense of their customer base.

    It’s the principles that are the problem.

    Our savior is not to be found – either in tombs, or bank accounts…

    • I see where you’re going with this, but from what I can tell, corporations can be true to certain principles (like political correctness), but be greed-driven monsters at the same time – even easier when you’re dealing with semi-monopolies and a populace that is pathetic when it comes to boycotts.

      I suppose it’s more of a critique of “muh free market” in the American style, although I honestly have a hard time noticing an equivalent anywhere else in the First World.

      • By the way, you ought to check out Von Mises’ infamous essay on monopolies…in it, he argues – convincingly so in my opinion – that the “cartelization” of European companies was the result of flaccid attempts to defend against the emerging productivity of the American market.

        Let’s not forget that “Austrian economics” isn’t called “Austrian” for nothing…I’ve often needled my natsoc pals by suggesting it’s more German than National Socialism…and it kind of is.

        • Well, and I know I’m going to piss some people off by saying it, National Socialism was just the German 20th Century revival of theories and common sense that have existed in some form throughout the ages.

          Sure, it combined science and racial theories that only emerged in the modern age, but a decent chunk of the economics existed since the Ancient Roman Republic.

  2. I think that is a white problem. In non-white culture excessive individualism did not replace the socal communitarian aspect. That is part of the problem. I think for a nation to achieve stability, longevity, and sustainability it must incorporate three vital elements Ethno-Nationalism, Social Communitarianism, and Democratic Populism. The Greater German Reich might have had two of these elements but it lacked the third. People must have some type of sovereignty against oligarchy and autocracy. The leadership principle is good until the leader is malevolent or incompetent!

    • The ‘Fuhrerprinzip’ developed under specific German circumstances of the time. The chaos of the end of WW1, the hyperinflation period, communist street gangs, etc. Germany prior had no history of ‘democracy,’ so the National Socialist regime of the 30’s had no credible tradition of it to spurn. Wiemar democracy had been a total flop. Hitler was not a really a total dictator , he had to obey judges decisions, etc. He never achieved total power until later in the war.

  3. Guilt is losing its power over Whites all over the world. Which is why the kakistocrats have resorted to deplatforming and financial blackballing. The Chinese-style social credit system is already here. Instead of the Party, here it’s run by crony capitalists in large corporations that see themselves as safe from retaliation. We can’t count on Blompf; he won’t defend dissidents. He has been more than willing to see friends get bankrupted and thrown into jail. “Muh constitution” doesn’t matter if no one will help the powerless being discriminated against. What can we do to protect ourselves? Resort to old-school, low-tech stuff like mailing checks and money orders? Banking only with credit unions?

  4. Yeah cuckservatives really are a dumbfuck bunch of special retards. They see cooperation as a weakness, while the most clanishly cooperative (((people))) in history absolutely dominate them. Individualism is a dead end offering nothing other than a life dedicated to pleasure and entertainment. Only boomers and jews are inspired by that. The rest of the world is not amused by these retards.

  5. Boomer conservatism: Muh free market trumps your free speech but not mine. What happened?

    Cuckservatives have no problem with someone like Hunter Wallace getting shut down because he’s one of those racistnaziwhitesupremacists. Cucks always insist they’re not like those “racists” over there. Anti-Whites don’t care. They’re White. What goes around comes around.

    Will cucks ever wise up?

  6. This is so opposite of the truth that it’s quite difficult to fathom the reasoning.

    I’m no fan of “free market capitalism”, but it is clear to anyone with functioning brain cells that today, capitalist institutions are being used by socialist political operatives.

    Did Chase bank target fans of one NFL football team because it is the rival of the CEO’s favorite team? Did Chase target the accounts of people who also hold accounts with competitors? Did Chase analyze someone’s purchasing data and close their account because they buy products from companies that Chase has a market intertest in harming? If any of these things occurred, one could argue that Muh Capitalism is the reason why Chase did what they did.

    No, instead, they targeted someone whose views, they deem, are contrary to the ability of POC or the “ascendency” demographic, to flourish and have wealth and power redistributed to them. They targeted the hostile white man.

    Certainly one can understand that there are capitalist economic reasons for doing this as well, but those reasons can only exist in a multicultural society, a globalist society, and both of those societies are much more favorable to democratic socialism than they are to traditional capitalism. Because the desire of all globalists is to enfranchise the disenfranchised, and give them the ability to participate in the market.

    The kind of populist socialism that I understand Hunter to promote, and rightly so, is only possible in a system where the native ethnic majority is 90% or better, and where it has no moral qualms with oppressing minorities in favor of family/community. It must be nepotistic and ethnocentric. But the truth is, even an almost purely capitalist society will flourish and excel under those same moral and demographic conditions. Re: America circa 1940s/50s

  7. The election of Drimp has infuriated the corporate neoliberal establishment and they are now in full retaliatory mode. If Drimp had responded in kind that would’ve been great, but he has left his supporters and “far right” activists to slowly twist in the wind instead. It’s obvious the neoliberal establishment wants to create a cashless economy where Wrongthink gets you financially un-personed/deplatformed. So much for all their cant about tolerance and inclusiveness.

Comments are closed.