“Evening News” (March 20, 2023)

Would a limited run on the banks be an effective means of peaceful protest?

Recently I dropped in at the woefully disappointing Badlands Media and listened to ‘Devolution Power Hour”. 

At one point, the topic turned to protests that might arise from a contrived Trump indictment. 

Of course the speakers advised against another J6 setup. The Canadian trucker strike was mentioned and then a novel idea was suggested.

I don’t know if it was Chris Paul or the Flat Earth Guy but one of them suggested  coordinated bank withdrawals as a means of peaceful protest. 

Food for thought. What would happen if a million people decided they needed an extra hundred dollars walking around money? Would the message be received? What if 10 million people withdrew a hundred dollars on the same day? What is 10 million people drew out a larger amount? What if larger numbers withdrew larger numbers?

If the message was received, would it be passed upstream (or downstream if you are of the banksters-control-everything school) to the appropriate destination? 

Would it be felt at all?

Would such a protest be self-destructive? If you have $20k in the bank and your $1k withdrawal in coordination with fellow protestors results in your bank’s failure, would you be better off? The Biden Administration might have a soft spot for banks patronized by Democrat donors but they might not display the same elevated compassion for you.

Would a coordinated withdrawal hasten the inevitable mass bank collapse? Is hastening the inevitable good? Is hastening the inevitable bad? A mass bank collapse is inevitable, isn’t it?

Would a limited withdrawal–a small scale protest with the warning that more could follow–send the right message to the right people? I don’t know. Once more, the editor has more questions than answers.

Zamisdat Editor-In-Chief.