The TRUTH about Bank Privacy

The Bank Secrecy Act in America flipped the burden of proof and created a “moral gray area” where people were now considered “guilty until proven innocent”, evidenced by the banks now tracking financial data on all transactions $10,000 and above (see the video at the bottom of the article). That gray area eventually became so large that all government intrusion via regulation now tracks every single transaction that we make, and therefore puts the burden of proving our innocence on us as they track us under the assumption of our guilt. The web of privacy violations is even worse in European countries.

Moral gray areas are the means through which many intrusions past our boundaries, and therefore our rights, are made possible. A moral gray area implies that the distinction between moral and immoral has become blurred, much like the border on a picture becomes blurred when there’s not a stark contrast between light and dark. For example, look at the following photo, where on the left side the contrast between light and dark clearly demarcates the boundary of the photo, while on the right side there isn’t any contrast, therefore it is difficult to determine where the boundary of the picture actually is. This is how creating moral gray areas confuses people and allows for more and more immorality, and violations of our rights, by bad actors intent on gaining power and advantage over us.

In a moral society, moral gray areas are essentially the only areas through which immorality can masquerade as morality and seep into such a society. They are the vulnerabilities and susceptibilities that allow immorality to gain traction enough to destabilize and take over moral societies from within. Moral gray areas are the hallmark of moral relativism, which is subjective morality rather than objective morality. (I explored other angles of moral relativism and moral absolutism in a previous article, Moral Relativists Masquerading as Moral Absolutists.)

Next, let’s examine the difference between secrecy and privacy, as that is also something that has not only been taken for granted, but intentionally confused and conflated, to create more moral gray areas.

Q: What is the difference between secrecy and privacy?

A: Secrecy and privacy are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. Secrecy refers to the act of keeping information hidden from others, often with the intent to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure. It is usually associated with actions that are deliberately taken to conceal information.

Privacy, on the other hand, refers to the right of individuals to control the use and disclosure of their personal information, including the right to be left alone. It’s about having the ability to choose when, how, and with whom you share information about yourself. Privacy is often associated with concepts like personal autonomy, dignity, and self-determination.

In summary, secrecy is about hiding information, while privacy is about controlling access to information. While they can overlap, they are not the same thing.

~Gab AI

I’ll make the distinction even simpler than Gab AI was able to state, secrecy is immoral as it occurs when one party violates the other party’s right to pertinent information to a soon to be established or established agreement between two parties, like a romantic couple where one of them is keeping a sexual affair secret from the other involved partner.  However, with privacy, it is where one or two parties are keeping the details of their agreement, along with any of the privileges that their agreement has, away from the prying eyes and ears of a third party who is not involved in their “private agreement”, for example a romantic couple keeping the details of their sex life private from their children, parents, and anybody else who aren’t involved in their agreement. In short, secrecy involves two parties in an agreement where one party withholds/lies about pertinent information regarding the disclosure and/or execution of the terms of the agreement, whereas privacy involves three parties, two of which are in an agreement and the third party has no rights to the information between the primary two parties who made the agreement.

Lastly, let’s look at the burden of proof logical fallacy, and how it is used by narcissists, psychopaths, parasites, Machiavellian types, and just straight up manipulators to gain power and advantage over people.

Q: What is the burden of proof fallacy, and how does it relate to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”?

A: The burden of proof fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone argues that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with the person refuting the claim. It’s akin to saying “I don’t have to prove my claim, you have to disprove it.” This is often used in debates when one side is unable or unwilling to provide evidence for their claim.

The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental principle in many legal systems, particularly in the United States. It means that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This shifts the burden of proof onto the prosecution, who must provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt.

The burden of proof fallacy can be seen as the opposite of this principle. It argues that the defendant must prove their innocence, which goes against the legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” This fallacy shifts the burden of proof from the person making the claim (the prosecution in a legal case) to the person refuting the claim (the defendant).

In essence, the burden of proof fallacy is a logical fallacy that can undermine the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” by erroneously placing the burden of proof on the person disputing a claim, rather than the person making the claim.

~Gab AI

In the book of Job, the earliest known book of the Bible, Satan (Hebrew for “adversary”), only has the power of accusation and reversing the burden of proof, and from there, once the accused accepts the reversal of the burden of proof, is now subject to being under the accuser’s power. I do admit that this is a special case, because God voluntarily recommended reversing the burden of proof to the adversary as part of a thought experiment of some sort, but regardless, that is the only way the accuser gained consent from God to attack Job.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”

So Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?”

So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”

And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.”

So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

~Job 1:6-12

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” comes to mind, where he states:

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

This also reminds me of when Disney puts out subpar movies and shows and injects them with feminist self-insert characters (not just female, but all powerful feminazi types) who are Mary Sue’s dominating the male “patriarchy”, and then calls anybody who doesn’t like the movie a racist, misogynist, and bigot for any objective critique of the movie, sometimes before the movie or show is even released. It’s solely done to gain power/advantage over their audience through pushing a pain point, as a means of manipulating and controlling society, and steering culture with nefarious goals in mind.

Here is the antidote to baseless attacks, accusations, moral ambiguity (gray areas), and tolerating invasive encroachments upon privacy through legislating immoral (inverted) laws:

1. Through the use of reason, clarify in your mind what is and is not objectively moral, and clearly define what is and is not your objective natural rights. Understanding rights and morality is key to this process. If there is moral ambiguity in your own thinking, you will tolerate moral ambiguity by others in a similar fashion. Do not mistake moral certainty and dogmatism with moral clarity, as they are not the same thing.
2. Refuse to react to accusations, and rather stand your ground by refusing to allow the burden of proof to be reversed, holding all accusers accountable to objectively validate their claims on an individual basis in a manner that objectively proves guilt (based upon the clarity from step one) beyond a shadow of a doubt. No victim, no crime.
3. Process and resolve all emotional upsets that prevent steps one or two from being clear and understandable within your Self.

Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:

Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F

THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.