reSee.it - Related Video Feed

ANZ bank has confirmed that some branches no longer handle cash at the counter, directing customers to smart ATMs instead. The number of ATMs has decreased from 14,000 in 2017 to around 6,000 last year. Cash is no longer as popular, with people finding it more convenient to go cashless. Australia's cash supply is shrinking for the first time since the introduction of dollars and cents in the 1960s. The country is becoming more reliant on digital payment methods, a trend that has been developing for a while.

We must not allow the elimination of cash. If we rely solely on central bank digital currencies, the computer will anticipate our actions and prevent us from doing certain things. For instance, if there is a restriction on traveling beyond 5 miles from home and you attempt to buy water 6 miles away, you will be denied. There are numerous reasons why it is important to keep cash.

Losing cash and relying solely on central bank digital currencies would give authorities the power to predict and control our actions. They could prevent us from doing things like buying a bottle of water if it goes against their rules, such as not leaving our house beyond a certain distance. This is why it's important to keep cash. It's concerning that politicians think they have the right to access all our information.

We've lived under a system where bankers manage monetary policy and elected officials handle fiscal policy. If we centralize control over both, we risk losing personal freedom. This could lead to a digital monetary system where authorities dictate how and where we can spend our money. For example, during the pandemic, restrictions could limit our spending to certain areas or items. It's crucial to preserve cash and checks to maintain an analog system. Experiences from disasters, like the cyclone in New Zealand, highlight the importance of cash for transactions when digital systems fail. Countries like Norway are recognizing this need and are reversing the trend toward a cashless society. Without cash, people face significant challenges during emergencies.

You know my country was the first where they made cash illegal. 2016, digitalization was forced from the country. 08:00 in the evening announced midnight cash was illegal, the big notes. And 70% of the economy crashed. This digitalization is now going all over the world and there's a war on cash. They call it war on cash. Because cash is merely a medium of exchange. It has no value in itself. It's just a promise. You read the dollar note it says I promise to pay the bearer. But an element of that great reset is you will own nothing. And you might have also followed that while all this has been happening the founder of the World Economic Forum did a book called The Great Reset on how to deal with the COVID crisis.

In this video, the speaker discusses the shift towards a cashless society and the implementation of a social credit system. They mention that their country was the first to make cash illegal in 2016, leading to a significant economic downturn. The speaker explains that digitalization is spreading worldwide, with a focus on eliminating cash. They highlight the potential dangers of this shift, such as the control of finances by big tech and the creation of a social credit system similar to China's. The speaker also mentions the concept of "The Great Reset" and expresses concern about the idea of individuals owning nothing. They emphasize the importance of awakening to these issues.

I currently have no cash available as it's all tied up. I can't even call a taxi because I don't have a credit card or checking account. The little cash I saved is almost gone. I do have a business and can manage business expenses, but I have to be very careful to avoid mixing personal and business expenses. Unlike others, I would face serious consequences for any mistakes.

I don't have money because my account hasn't been deposited with 3,600 pesos yet. I'm not sure if it goes into my bank account. Can you check? Also, is there any balance on that card?

The speaker describes Thailand implementing a biometric-based system that consolidates everything under one roof and ID folder, enabling authorities to “switch you off at the touch of a button.” Suddenly, over 3,000,000 people had their bank accounts shut down, causing a banking crisis as biometric data is used in every facet of life. Every banking transaction is monitored and scrutinized; any perceived discrepancy is flagged as fraud and punished without due process. Regulations overwhelmed the system, resulting in a full-fledged banking crisis. Over 3,000,000 Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning. Transactions are denied, and when people contact their bank to understand why payments failed, they learn that their entire account has been frozen. The bank is investigating them for suspicious activity and potential money laundering or fraud, with no warning, no call or letter, and no clarification about which transaction was flagged. People are completely locked out of their accounts, losing the ability to purchase, fill their gas tanks, or buy groceries. They have been removed from the financial system, and there is no indication of when, or if, they will regain access to their funds. This is the reality for millions of people banking in Thailand. The situation caused widespread fear and panic, leading retailers to stop accepting cards and demand cash, as they also worry about being removed from the banking system. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system evaporated. People rationally fear that their accounts will be targeted next without warning. Government overreach backfired, causing people to withdraw from the banking system altogether, and the speaker notes this as a positive development to see people keeping cash alive. The speaker suggests the episode serves as a test case for what digital ID is going to do and as a warning against accepting it. The closing remark states that the controversy over Charlie Kirk is less important than what will be done with this technology. What matters, according to the speaker, is what they’re going to do with it.

Banks are increasingly restricting withdrawals and deposits. A friend attempted to withdraw $20 but was told he needed to explain its purpose. When he went to withdraw $20,000, the bank required proof of where the money was going. Additionally, attempts to invest in Bitcoin were limited to just $5 a month. This reflects a broader trend towards a cashless society, which could lead to increased control over personal finances. It's essential to diversify your funds across multiple banks, as relying on bank insurance can be risky. Political views can also affect banking access, as seen with Nigel Farage's experience of being debanked. Ultimately, it's crucial to take control of your finances and decentralize your money.

The speaker describes a system introduced in Thailand that centralizes biometric data and requires all ID and financial information to be under one roof. They claim this led to an immediate, nationwide disruption: "simultaneously, over 3,000,000 people had their bank accounts shut down." Thailand is framed as a case study for the use of biometric data in every facet of life, with "Every banking transaction [being] monitored and scrutinized." Any perceived discrepancy is said to be flagged as fraud and punished without due process. According to the speaker, regulations overwhelmed the system, resulting in a "full fledged banking crisis." They assert that "Over 3,000,000 Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning as a result of government overreach." When people attempt to check why a payment failed, they are reportedly told that their account has been frozen. The claim is that "All of your accounts for that matter" are frozen, and the bank is "investigating you for suspicious activity and potential money laundering or fraud." There is said to be "no warning, call, or letter, and there is no clarification as to what transaction was flagged." The outcome is described as being "completely locked out of your accounts," losing the ability to purchase, fill your gas tank, or buy groceries. The speaker notes that millions are facing this reality in Thailand, and that the situation has "freaked the entire country out." They add that "thousands of accounts are frozen each week" and that panic has ensued. Retailers are no longer accepting cards and are demanding payment in cash as they worry about being removed from the banking system. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system is said to have evaporated, with people "rationally fear[ing] that their account will be targeted next without warning." The speaker asserts that government overreach has backfired, leading people to remove themselves from the banking system entirely, which they describe as "a really good thing to see, folks." The narrative frames this as a backlash that demonstrates the necessity of keeping cash alive and relying less on a digital system. It is presented as a test case for what the digital ID will do, and a warning against accepting it. The speaker contends that many warnings have been issued for a long time, and emphasizes the need for people to see what is happening. In closing, they say, "All everyone's been arguing over whether Charlie Kirk died or whether he didn't. It doesn't matter. What matters is what they're gonna do with it."

In Victoria, there are reports of people having their bank accounts frozen and their money taken away. They are being told to collect their belongings and are being cut off from unemployment benefits. One person's friend called in tears, saying that their money was taken and they were forced to book a vaccination appointment. The government has also provided a QR code that restricts access to their funds and prevents them from making purchases until they are vaccinated.

Three Australian cases illustrate bank overreach amid crypto, Know Your Customer rules and digital-ID talk. A woman known as Mantra Moments says a bank froze her account after a crypto purchase; after a second attempt, staff asked for private information about a friend. “Your restriction stays for two more days,” and “We’re keeping you safe,” she says, leaving her unable to pay rent. In another case, a customer withdrawing cash for construction faced demands for invoices; maximum without proof is $4,000 a day; “we need proof” and “there's a lot of scams... protect you from being reckless.” A third story: Katie McMaster was locked out of HSBC, told to verify identity with “100 points of ID” after no suspicious activity; recall of “know your customer” and warnings that digital ID/digital currency/social credit are coming. Promo: free webinar Oct 9 privacyacademy.com/pulse.

The New Zealand Central Bank head admits to creating money out of nothing and people believing it, calling central banking a great business. The speaker highlights the absurdity of this practice, emphasizing how people struggle to afford necessities while banks create money with a keyboard.

A big bank has confirmed that some branches no longer handle cash over the counter, directing customers to smart ATMs instead. The number of ATMs has decreased by more than half since 2017. In a conversation, one person asks for change but is told that cash is no longer used. The other person agrees, stating that not having cash is more convenient. This marks another step towards a cashless society.

Australia is reportedly shifting towards becoming cash-free, with over $1 billion in notes disappearing from circulation in the last year. This follows the Commonwealth Bank's trial of cashless branches in Sydney. Economists claim a cashless society could negatively impact criminals in the black market. However, it could also make life harder for elderly people who depend on cash.

A woman in Queensland was shocked when she went to her bank to withdraw cash but was told they didn't have any. Taryn Compton forgot her EFTPOS card and asked for cash at the ANZ ATM, only to be informed that the bank no longer carries cash. Taryn found it absurd and was told by the bank that they don't have cash anymore, leaving her puzzled about what's in the bank if not cash. She was not given any explanation or assurance that the situation was temporary.

The speaker describes Thailand’s rollout of a biometric, centralized system as having dramatic and disruptive consequences for ordinary banking customers. Once ID documents and biometric data were consolidated “under one roof,” the system enabled the government to switch individuals off “at the touch of a button.” The speaker asserts that, in Thailand, more than 3,000,000 people suddenly had their bank accounts shut down in unison, with banking transactions monitored and scrutinized for perceived discrepancies, and any fraud flagged and punished without due process. According to the speaker, regulations overwhelmed the system, resulting in a full-fledged banking crisis. Over 3,000,000 Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning. Transactions were denied, and when people contacted their banks to inquire why a payment failed, they were told their accounts had been frozen and that the bank was investigating them for suspicious activity, money laundering, or fraud. There was said to be no warning, no call, no letter, and no clarification about which transaction was flagged. People were completely locked out of their accounts, losing the ability to purchase, fill gas tanks, or buy groceries, effectively removing them from the financial system with no knowledge of when or if access would be restored. The speaker notes that millions of Thai bank accounts were affected and that thousands of accounts were frozen each week. This led to panic, with retailers refusing card payments and demanding cash, because they were concerned about being removed from the banking system themselves. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system reportedly evaporated, as people feared their own accounts could be targeted next without warning. The speaker asserts that government overreach backfired and prompted people to remove themselves from the banking system altogether, which the speaker frames as a positive development to see people rely on cash again. The broader point drawn is that the Thai experience serves as a warning and a test case for what digital IDs might do. The speaker argues that the episode demonstrates why people should resist accepting such a system. The closing remark shifts from the specific incident to a broader point: while debates about a public figure’s death may arise, what matters is what will be done with digital ID and control systems going forward.

As ATMs and bank branches close, Australia is moving towards becoming a cashless society. Businesses like KFC, Krispy Kreme, and Nando's have already stopped accepting cash, and even Macquarie Bank is phasing out cash transactions. Economist Richard Holden predicts that within five years, Australia will be functionally cashless. However, there are concerns about the impact on older Australians and those in areas with limited internet access. Sweden, the first nation to introduce banknotes, is also on the path to eliminating them, but faced backlash due to difficulties in paying for essential goods. Lobby group Cash Welcome warns that Australia should learn from Sweden's experience. Despite the shift towards digital payments, Australians still withdraw $8 billion in cash each month.

What if an organization like Ericsson controlled the internet? It raises questions about how a non-government entity could hold a government hostage through its monetary system. This situation has already occurred with the current system, particularly with the Federal Reserve and SWIFT, which operates privately. For instance, withdrawing over $10,000 from a bank often prompts questions about the purpose. Debanking is also becoming common. A personal example is the 2019 shutdown of Lebanon's Central Bank, which left many without access to their funds, while local politicians managed to retrieve theirs. People often remain unconcerned until a crisis directly impacts them, similar to the 2008 real estate crash, highlighting how governance and private sectors often disregard individual concerns until they face legal consequences.

The speaker reports being unable to buy food in China. After receiving a cell phone linked to a Chinese bank card, the account was flagged, requiring facial recognition identity verification. The speaker expresses disbelief at needing facial recognition to spend a gift card balance. The speaker failed the verification, as the phone setup was done by a cousin. As a result, the speaker is once again unable to buy anything.

Banks like Santander, Deutsche Bank, and Royal Bank of Scotland are broke due to fractional reserve banking, allowing them to lend money they don't possess. This practice is a criminal scandal that has been ongoing for too long.

Speaker 0: Once you've got everything under one roof and you've got all your ID together in one place, it means you can be switched off at the touch of a button. So they brought this system in in Thailand, and suddenly, like simultaneously, over 3,000,000 people had their bank accounts shut down. Thailand has become a case study for the use of biometric data in every facet of life. Every banking transaction is monitored and scrutinized. Any perceived discrepancies flagged as fraud and punished without due process. Regulations have overwhelmed the system resulting in a full fledged banking crisis. Over 3,000,000 Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning as a result of government overreach. Transaction denied, you'd contact your bank to see why the payment failed only to learn that your account has been frozen, all of your accounts for that matter. The bank is investigating you for suspicious activity and potential money laundering or fraud. There was no warning, call, or letter, and there is no clarification as to what transaction was flagged. You're completely locked out of your accounts. You have lost the ability to purchase. You cannot fill your gas tank. You cannot purchase groceries. You've been completely removed from the financial system, and you do not know when or if you will regain access to your funds. This is the reality for millions of people banking in Thailand. That's crazy stuff, folks, and this freaked the entire country out. But the article goes on to say, thousands of accounts are frozen each week. Panic has ensued. Retailers are no longer accepting cards demanding payment in cash as they too are worried that they will be removed from the banking system. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system evaporated. People rationally fear that their account will be targeted next without warning. Government overreach has backfired, and the people are removing themselves from the banking system entirely. And that's a really good thing to see, folks. Yeah. So it backfired, and it caused the people in Thailand to see how much they need to keep cash alive and depend on cash. And it's saying it serves as a test case for what this digital ID is gonna do. Well, it also serves as a test case for why you shouldn't accept it. And so many of us have been warning about this for so long, folks, and it's imperative that people see this because this is what's been going on. All everyone's been arguing over whether Charlie Kirk died or whether he didn't, it doesn't matter. What matters is what they're gonna do with it.

A man questions a judge about how banks supposedly operate with borrowed funds. He presents a scenario: “I gave you the equivalent of $200,000. You returned the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest. Do you think I’m stupid?” He asserts that banks and Congress allow practices where banks breach written agreements, use false or misleading advertising, act without written permission or the borrower’s knowledge, and transfer actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, then return it as a loan. The man asks if, in this system, the borrower’s actual cash value funds the bank loan check and how the bank then uses those funds. The other participant, identified as a borrower in the discussion, responds that the borrower “got a check in the house.” The man pushes: is it true the actual cash value funding the loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the borrower “for free”? He states, “No equal consideration. They got it from you for free,” and presses that the bank’s policy is to transfer the borrower’s cash value from the check to themselves and keep the money as the bank’s property, which they then loan out back to the borrower as if they own it and loan their own money. The other participant answers affirmatively, though notes not being present at the time to know the borrower’s intent. The man asks further: if a lender loans a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refuses to repay, is the lender damaged? The reply: yes, the lender is damaged if the loan isn’t repaid. He asks whether the bank’s practice is to take the borrower’s actual cash value, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return it to the borrower. The response: the bank returns the funds, but as a loan to the borrower. The man clarifies: was the cash value returned as the bank loan to the borrower or as return of the money the bank took? Answer: as a loan. The man concludes, “So how did the bank get the borrower’s money for free? … It doesn’t make any sense.” A narrator then frames the scene: a man discussing banking with a judge, summarizing the exchange about funding checks with the borrower’s name, and the judge’s reaction that “all the banks are doing this” and that Congress allows it. The narrator describes the process in which you apply for a loan, a check with your name is issued, the bank takes it, and then “gives it back to you as a loan plus interest,” sourced from your own funds. He asserts there is no equal consideration and suggests people don’t understand truth in lending. The speaker claims that if the public understood the financial system, there would be a revolution, but people prefer to “dance.”