After BofA Escalates, Refuses To Process Wikileaks' Payments, Wiki Retaliates, Advises Americans To Put Their Money "Somewhere Safer"

Tyler Durden's picture

Bank of America just fired the preemptive escalation shot in its duel with Wikileaks. Late on Friday, America's biggest mortgage lender, and the firm that is now getting sued left and right for various mortgage transgressions, announced it is joining MasterCard, Paypal and Visa in ceasing transactions for Wikileaks. While this decision will certainly not improve Operation Anonymous' empathy toward the North Carolina bank, it may just precipitate overt retaliation by Assange, who is now rumored to be in possession of data that could provie harmful to BAC. Which is why this sudden escalation out of left field by the bank strikes as surprisingly odd: BofA's upside is very limited while its downside could be 100% - even if Wikileaks is bluffing, why provoke them. And as expected, Wikileaks has already retaliated: in two sequential tweets it advised its 568,117 (and very rapidly growing) subscribers to pull their money out of Bank of America, and also to close all their accounts with the firm, urging them to put their money "somewhere safer." What is curious is to see whether this sudden escalation, in what has now become synonymous with a quest for preserving the first amendment for a substantial deal of people (and freedom of speech globally), will have a far broader impact than the comparable "Pull Your Money" out of the Big Banks venture that was attempted by Huffington Post over a year ago, with unsatisfactory results. If people suddenly personify Bank of America with a First Amendment threat, arguably the one freedom most cherished in America, which is precisely what Assange is trying to do, all bets for the Countrywide acquirer may soon be off.

Below is Bank of America's statement released on Friday night:

"Bank of America joins in the actions previously announced by MasterCard, PayPal, Visa Europe and others and will not process transactions of any type that we have reason to believe are intended for WikiLeaks," the bank said in a statement.

"This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments."

Concurrently the bank was declined to comment whether it would be Wikileaks' next target.

This press release by Bank of America provoked the following two tweets out of @wikileas' twitter account:

Obviously it is the conditional "safer" keyword that will get everyone's attention. Especially since it is now known that Wikileaks will release it bank data trove as soon as January.

In retaliation to BofA's provocation, it appears that Assange just fired the preliminary shot in the massive run on Bank of America... and possible soon other US banks?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dkizzle49855's picture

I would love to witness a good old fashioned bank run.  Bank run bitchez!

illyia's picture

That video was devastating.

... thanks...

MsCreant's picture

I'm still crying. Someone explain to me what they were doing wrong, what the justification was for that? I know they can't but those cops had to believe something in order to be doing what they did.

I wrote more. I deleted it. 

cosmictrainwreck's picture

"just followin' orders, ma'am" you wanna know about 'justification'? hahaha. as to what the cops "believed"? well that's a doozy.... a rule of thumb (in ordinary circumstance) is one's actions reflect one's beliefs. BUT, once mob-think takes over, all bets are off. It's a puzzler. I'll point out "brotherhood" among cops is a phenomenon. Wonder if anybody's researched this exact episode, or general confronts. Speaking in strict pragmatism, regardless of circumstance, I'd wager that 90%+ of the time, the cops "win", as long as there's more than 3 of 'em together..... sadly, need more "data points" to extrapolate future of USA

Billy Shears's picture

Didn't they hang miscreants like this at Nuremberg for the very same reason under the legal construct of "crimes against humanity".

More like droogs out of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. You know:

  • "The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultraviolence."

""One thing I could never stand was to see a filthy dirty old drunky howling away at the filthy songs of his fathers and going blurp blurp in between as it might be a filthy old orchestra in his stinking rotten guts;I could never stand to see anyone like that. whatever his age might be, but more especially when he was real old like this one was.

Irish Drunk: Can you spare some cutter me brothers? Go on, do me in, you bastards like this, I don't want to live in a stinking old world like this" Alex: "Oh? And What's so stinking about it?


ConfederateH's picture

You people should realize that there will be a lot more of this coming.  Never, I repeat NEVER, get between a public union member and his paycheck.

Lord Welligton's picture

"but those cops had to believe something in order to be doing what they did"


Plain and simple.


RichardP's picture

You are making it too complicated.  They only need to believe in their paychecks.  Such is the banality of evil.

oddjob's picture

The Mayerthorpe incident proves how truly inept they are when not fighting on home court.

dark pools of soros's picture

attack the cops homes and family while they are out beating hippies - see how they feel with their mercenary gains then


they have to live in the village too right??

Widowmaker's picture

Bingo  -- and let not enfarcement forget that.

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

yes, but what belief system did they posess that led them to a career choice, above other options, in which they would knowingly be called upon to act like that???

comes back to fascism, proto fascism or a disregard for fascism

Things that go bump's picture

They like it.  Police departments attract bullies.  Did you see this video, where the cop pushed that disabled woman down on the street and then they just walked off and left her lying there.


jeff montanye's picture

this is true.  the department does attract bullies, sadists and those with low self-esteem who wish to overcompensate.  i was sucker punched in high school (almost killed me six months and forty years later -- other stories).  the guy became a career police officer.  i was also brutalized by another in a false arrest.

the department also attracts relatively kind people who deeply believe in protecting the defenseless and work selflessly and bravely to do so.  seems (to me) that it would really be worth it to try hard to distinguish these groups (and excellently train and offer great incentives to the "undecided"), refusing to give society's sanction to use violence to the bullies, etc.  that this is done so poorly and rarely says a great deal about our masters.

BigJim's picture

Ostensibly a good idea, but you are forgetting that the police serve two functions, requiring both sorts of cops:

i) legitimate law enforcement (protecting the citizens from predators), and

ii) protecting predators (ie, TPTB) from citizens.

This is one of the great strokes of genius by TPTB, because if you criticise police brutality, they twist it to mean you're some kind of anarchist.'s picture

I am an anarchist.

Security workers hired in a free market would be less likely to commit acts of brutality than government forces because the private responders would be less willing to beat their employers. Government security workers are beholden to the political class and not the taxpayers and have no problem beating mundanes like you and me.

UGrev's picture

an unfortunate amount of law enforcement officers think they are immune because they wear a badge. They continue this thought pattern for so long that they eventually think they can also be judge dredd. I'm not saying this goes for all cops, but so far all but 1 cop that I've met has behaved like this. It's a gradual process and they are dangerous because this has become their daily thought process. It's decades worth of conditioning... to make them think WE ARE ALL CRIMINALS FIRST before we are innocent civilians. 

macholatte's picture

It was not cops who committed murder at Kent State, it was the National Guard. Other students and young people just like the ones protesting. A clash of belief systems.

Five to one, baby
One in five
No one here gets out alive, now
You get yours, baby
I'll get mine
Gonna make it, baby
If we try

The old get old
And the young get stronger
May take a week
And it may take longer
They got the guns
But we got the numbers
Gonna win, yeah
We're takin' over
Come on!


      -- The Doors


UGrev's picture

my point still stands.'s picture

Five to one, baby
One in five


Five to one is equivalent to one in six.

jeff montanye's picture

and in "touch me" morrison writes "for you and i", clearly incorrect (google the lyric "for you and i" and note his company).  still quite a lyricist and one of the half dozen or so best male rock singers of all time (imo).  "peace frog" comes to mind for this thread.'s picture

If you reference Shakespeare note that he uses the phrase "for you and I" correctly:

"For you and I are past our dancing days." Break it down. You are past your dancing days. I am past my dancing days.

tmosley's picture

The Lucifer Effect.  Poorly designed social structures cause good people to become evil.  This is best exemplified in prisons, where guards who might be good people on the outside become abusive sadists on the inside, because of social pressure to fulfill a certain role.  The social structure within society in general, and police organizations in particular has broken down so much that in many cases, the entire outside world has in effect become a prison, where they are the guards.

macholatte's picture

your premise is that people are good to begin with. Freud disagreed.


Civilized society is perpetually menaced with disintegration through this primary hostility of men towards one another.
Sigmund Freud
I have found little that is "good" about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think.
Sigmund Freud
tmosley's picture

People are inherently good as individuals.  It is exceedingly rare that a human being will initiate aggression absent of destructive social pressures.  Fear and a sense of fair play are inherent in humans.  Both regulate human behavior, and are very difficult to overcome.  If it weren't, humans wouldn't be able to form complex societies.

e_goldstein's picture

"People are inherently good as individuals."

sure. until they get hungry.

Ned Zeppelin's picture

I subscribe to the 51% Good, 49 % Evil theory.  Explains why thus far we have not experienced a nuclear armageddon. 

One of those curious numbers/universe ratios thingies. 

Clinteastwood's picture


"People are inherently good as individuals."


Tmosley, you have not one iota of experience with prisoners/guards.  You have no idea what you are talking about.


YHC-FTSE's picture

The arguments about human nature, being born good or evil, nurture versus nature, are all as old as language. One opinion does not triumph over another, but I'm with Tmosley on this one. Maybe all of our opinions of others are merely projections of ourselves.


People are inherently good until their flight/fight instincts are released. And when I say "People", I mean individuals outside prisons, mental hospitals, and other institutions, like the CIA, where morals are not pertinent to living.

-Michelle-'s picture

I must disagree.  Just take a peek in to any daycare or preschool.  People are inherently selfish and mean.  Good behavior is learned.  The majority of parenting is reducing your children's baser instincts.

YHC-FTSE's picture

There is that too, which is undeniable. But there are many instances where the parents are irresponsible monsters but their child instinctively exhibits selfless, compassionate behaviour towards others. As I said, one opinion does not triumph over another. I guess it must all be a projection of our own experiences and upbringing.

RichardP's picture


Informed opinion will generally be more reliable than speculation.  Whether it triumphs over speculation is another matter entirely.

In a society where there is not enough food for all mouths, see whether the bullies or the docile are the ones who survive.  Extrapolate from that.'s picture

People are inherently selfish and mean.

Selfishness is a virtue. It means that you won't let your own good nature be taken over by others who will convince you to do ill in the name of the church or the nation or some other collectivist nonsense.

YHC-FTSE's picture

Freud also said women suffer from penis envy.


Freud may not have been a screwball as such, but he may as well have been one. It's only Americans who take him seriously (I wonder why?), but everyone knows his research was seriously flawed. What he knows about humanity, women, sexuality, and dreams comes from jewish ladies living in North London. That's it - that was his entire sample population to prop up the theories that were rejected in Vienna. 


Please don't quote Freud, if you don't wish to be associated with someone who fraudulently misrepresented his case studies all his life.

jeff montanye's picture

and were they not self-selected (i.e. came as patients)?  still he had insights and broadened the discourse that came to define modernity.  "civilization and its discontents" is a fruitful read imo.  cautionary tale about tobacco and cocaine abuse as well.

Unlawful Justice's picture

Ironic that you speak of fraud when it's you that is speaking it.  You are now on my junk list YHC-FTSE.

An excellent book:  Freud Scientifically reappraised - Testing the theories and therapy.  Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg.

YHC-FTSE's picture

Obviously not a fan of Hans Eysenck then: The most cited psychologist in science journals. I suggest you read him before making false accusations. The fucking audacity of illiterate pricks like you sometimes amazes me. 

Unlawful Justice's picture

Pushed into a corner ALL humans are capable of unspeakable things.  Some can go further than others before they break.  The propaganda by religion only confuses the matter.  We are animals,  not some special creature made in gods image.'s picture

We are animals,  not some special creature made in gods image.


And animals are not evil. So there it is.

trav7777's picture know what the cops did?  They were merely following orders.  ALL of them.

The Legislature or the Executive will purport to authorize or order them to do something which violates other laws, Constitutions, or basic human rights and they will do it.  ALL were "just following orders."

The worst part is that they EMBRACE those illegal orders with complete enthusiasm.  In fact, they sit around hoping for such orders so they can be the jackbooted thugs they want to be and then pass the buck off to someone up the chain.

The Ontario Legislature that authorized that shit should be indicted.

There was no justification.  They did it because they can.  Big protests EMBARRASS the self-absorbed, self-appointed "elite" leadership.  They get ribbed by other "leaders" like "oh you don't have your subjects in line, I see, this would never happen in OUR country."  Seriously.  These clowns have gotten so used to hearing themselves referred to as LEADERS instead of REPRESENTATIVES that they now act like they ARE the law.

And who can blame them?  At what point in recent history has there been ONE BIT of repercussions for anything like this?  Busch and his gang passed the whole torture thing off onto the opinion of a LAWYER.  As if because you can find one lawyer to tell you that something is legal, it absolves you from any criminal liability!

What this recent protest movement seems to show is that if you're going to assemble "peaceably," you'd better NOT actually be peaceable.  If you are, you will get stormtrooped.  If you show up to riot and with weapons and explosives, only THEN will you command any kind of deference from the "authorities."  These people are classic bullies; they respect only force.

macholatte's picture

agree with most of your statement untill the end....


What this recent protest movement seems to show is that if you're going to assemble "peaceably," you'd better NOT actually be peaceable.  If you are, you will get stormtrooped.  If you show up to riot and with weapons and explosives, only THEN will you command any kind of deference from the "authorities." 


see Ghandi & King 

                  it takes leadership to overcome.


trav7777's picture

King didn't overcome shit.  Ghandi didn't either.

Sure, if you're claiming independence from a depleted empire with no desire to keep you, the passive shit might work.

If you have an army of jew money behind your rights movement (of which you are a figurehead), passive shit might work too.

We have neither.

You may also contrast with the success of violent revolutions like the US's against empires that actually didn't want to just give in.

What is your problem that you have issues with violence?  Serf's mentality?  You would sit and watch the stormtroopers carry everyone off violently and just keep "overcoming"?  Peaceable assembly is a failure.

DaveyJones's picture

does goi money work or must all the bills be circumcised? your historical causations can get unique 

trav7777's picture

who founded, funds, and ran all of the major "civil rights" organizations?  Which studios produced the "progressive" films?

Pull your head out of your ass.

King was nothing and neither were his followers.  Those who moved laws, opinion, and policy behind the scenes were the ones with the power.  Money talks.

DaveyJones's picture

i never knew history was only a puppet show. the last time I checked the books, poor people use their mouth every now and then