Confidentiality

Invisible — in plain sight.

The impact system began to be constructed over 5,000 years ago. At that time, it was not perceived as a system but simply as ways to maintain power. Gradually, new methods became technologies; complex interactions accumulated, and the infrastructure evolved so that every process aimed at expanding influence possibilities began to be perceived as part of everyday life.

Since each new generation was born within the impact system, generation after generation, shaped by the system of its time, accepted it as the standard of governance. Over time, as the system expanded and people began expressing opinions on various topics, they convinced each other that everything around happens naturally — not directed.

Moreover, each based their belief solely on their lack of understanding — thinking that if they do not understand how to govern humanity, no one does. They “looked” at each other, and since no one had any idea where to start thinking, everyone simply agreed that processes flow on their own (as if states never existed). No one conducted deep research to map the impact system to discuss the natural mechanisms of processes. Thus, gradually, this became the norm.

Furthermore, the imperfection of the world indirectly confirms the pseudo-natural course of processes. Yet it is commonly used as the main argument against it — saying if our world is so flawed, then an impact system cannot exist. After all, if it did exist, it would have created a more perfect world (if it wanted to be revealed).

This is another built-in error! Since the goal of government services is not to perfect state processes but to execute tasks aimed at expanding the impact system’s possibilities. If such expansion requires improving certain processes, government services undertake it — for example, radio, television, cellular communication, internet, “smart cities”, and more (no roads, but cellular communication and internet). But when expansion implies imperfection, government services’ actions aim to ensure that imperfection — such as excessive bureaucracy, poor education quality, corruption, and more (no clear interaction but large-scale projects).

For example, the impact system may use a person with weak intelligence to produce low, medium, and high-quality results, and a person with strong intelligence only for high-quality results. The results of the weak intellect person always depend on the impact system, while strong intellect results largely depend on themselves. Since strong intellect people reduce impact system possibilities, it builds processes favoring emergence of weak intellect people and limiting strong intellect ones; the former can be used everywhere, the latter only where precision matters. The impact system also uses weak intellect people for extended influence on others — including their leaders — providing opportunities to slow or accelerate processes and balance all environment processes more precisely. Thus, an imperfect environment expands impact system possibilities, while a perfect one narrows them.

Hence, the impact system will support world imperfection as long as it expands its possibilities. Moreover, as mentioned, the world’s imperfection indirectly proves that if the world is so flawed, technologies for governing people at such a high level cannot exist.

The environment is arranged so people believe all processes occur not to maintain power but solely to improve citizens’ quality and standard of living and maintain global peace. For over 5,000 years, states have only cared about ordinary people’s living standards — “leaving nothing for themselves”. And every war is “an accident” or “the work of ill-wishers”.

But why then is every success attributed to government services, and not, for example, chance or assistance from another state? It is convenient that failures are “the enemy’s actions”, while successes are “our government’s”. This is an old influence technology associating all strong negative emotions with external factors and positives with internal ones. Gradually, certain people are formed with the mistaken notion that the “enemy” is responsible for all bad, while their president or officials are responsible for all good. Thus, many regularly see hostile statements and actions of politicians from other states and their own government's officials’ work — with behaviors especially shaped for this association — and continue perceiving reality as a struggle between “their” and “foreign” states.

Salary payment first appeared over 8,000 years ago. Since paying for labor enabled more effective human behavior management, it gradually spread worldwide. Today, salary is a norm. Thanks to wages, even those who hate their jobs work daily without attempting harm to their employers.

Salaries contribute to people’s impression that world processes serve to improve quality and life level. For instance, a person washing economy-class cars earns wages, raising their life quality. The job is simple, and the money suffices for living in their area. A promotion offers washing premium cars with higher pay, improving their lifestyle and enabling some entertainment.

Five hundred years ago, achieving similar quality and life level required more complex work. The world population was 16 times smaller, so complex processes were unnecessary (to engage and retain 8 billion people). As population grew, the impact system formed new processes that people seemingly naturally joined, engaged others in, and maintained mutual engagement. Personal financial gain and improved quality and life level facilitated this. Everyone lives this way now, accelerating system development and further distorting process origins.

Simultaneously, the impact system forms people’s conditions — family, work, entertainment, problems, global events, and more. These consume their free time, leaving no room for other activities — including independent research to detect the impact system or its subsystems and parts. To prevent such detection through accidental information accumulation in one place, the impact system divides all information by organizations and functions.

Information division by organizations splits process servicing among many organizations. The more organizations servicing a process, the greater the impact system’s possibilities. Information needed for servicing a single process is never enough to detect the entire impact system, its subsystems, or parts. Even if thousands of organizations pool their accumulated information into one entity, servicing different parts and processes requires too many resources to identify the whole system, its subsystems, or parts.

Information division by functions splits servicing part of a process among many people. The same principle applies — the more people involved, the greater system possibilities. Each person performs a limited function set, insufficient to collect all information about the impact system, its subsystems, or parts. No posts entail simultaneous work with all key information; such work is distributed among many organizations, departments, divisions, and employees — including secret government services.

Distributions by organizations and functions prevent anyone from limiting impact system possibilities or amassing enough information to reveal it.

Strong intellect independent researchers could reveal the impact system, its subsystems, or parts if not for an embedded information protection system. Its essence is simple — using double meanings of phenomena related to the impact system.

For example, when a monarchy faced a potential power threat, contemporary special services prepared a war, sending men to prevent coups. Many wars began thus. To make common people go to war, special services raided their own villages, killing their subjects, fabricating proof of foreign state attacks. Based on this, authorities addressed their people announcing war. War’s first meaning then was “men’s destruction” (meaning for power); the second, “reprisal”, was for common folk. Since the real cause was “men’s destruction”, the “reprisal” is a built-in error.

Over 5,000 years ago, the technology of dividing information by meanings emerged, requiring important people — unaware of the first meaning’s existence — to comment on, describe, narrate, and show all events. Initially only monarchs knew the first meaning. They always relayed only second meanings of all events, gradually filling the environment with erroneous worldviews. As fragmented information accumulates and is combined, the first meaning occasionally appears. To prevent it dominating the second, many narrators (numerous officials) are needed to dilute accidental first-meaning stories with continued second-meaning retellings.

Today, this technology is highly refined via an international information distribution network — newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, internet, cellular communication, and more. All information inputted into this network always carries only the second meaning. Many people with behavior algorithms for expressing opinions ensure that each second-meaning information input spawns third, fourth, and hundreds of other meanings. Defending their opinions based on second-meaning combinations reinforces erroneous thinking for themselves and others. Thus, simple but frequent commenting by people knowing only second, third, fourth, and other meanings consistently fills the environment with erroneous meanings of all phenomena.

Simply put, using such people to express opinions on each event forms second meanings for all occurrences (just need time). Moreover, some second meanings render entire directions erroneous.

For example, the “organism’s defense mechanism” is a second meaning. In reality, it’s a simplification, as no “organism’s defense mechanism” exists. This second meaning appeared when some scientists failed to explain microprocesses in living bodies as they actually occur. They proposed grouping this complex into “organism’s defense mechanism” (later included in teaching materials). All those confusing microprocesses never formed a defense mechanism. By chance, some proteins assumed forms attaching easily to viruses, allowing other cells to engulf viruses, etc. Organisms without such microprocesses or living where viruses had other forms died off. One key second meaning led people to perceive complex microprocess combinations simply as “organism’s defense mechanism”, distorting physiology understanding and embedding subtle errors in evolution perception. All thinking in this area becomes erroneous.

Nowadays, second-meaning formation is automated with many fine-tuned settings. Since ordinary people lack access to first-meaning information, they can never reveal the impact system, its subsystems, or parts, so their thinking remains erroneous.

For covert special service employees maintaining the impact system and possessing first-level information, national security and state secrets laws apply. Even direct questions on the impact system, subsystems, parts, or operation require plausible deniability. Unauthorized disclosure results in accountability and detention; if impossible, liquidation.

Hence, uncontrolled first-level information leaks are impossible; people only see and discuss second, third, and other information levels. This provides the impact system and covert special services a basic confidentiality level.

An additional confidentiality layer is self-provided by forming in people behavior algorithms preventing disclosure of the impact system, its subsystems, or parts. For example, a specialist defending the “truth” about a technology’s purpose:

A qualified cellular communications specialist, explaining multiplexing and listing only second-level meanings, defends their knowledge’s “truth”. This arises since overcoming complex learning provokes superiority, which recurs when explaining phenomena taught. Presenting alternative explanations may initiate depressive anticipation depending on experience, thinking, and reflexes, causing unpleasant emotions and initiating defense algorithms. With access only to second-meaning info, the specialist’s knowledge is distorted and erroneous. Thus, specialists’ defense of “truth” locks erroneous thinking in them and observers.

The impact system forms behavior algorithms for specialists, using them to service its parts while filling the environment with second, third, fourth, and further meanings. High specialist qualifications increase trust in information, accelerating erroneous thinking spread.

Many believe presidents govern their countries, but that is only a second meaning. The third meaning views a president as a power symbol; the fourth, as political process administrator. Third and fourth meanings complement the second, forming erroneous thinking that presidents govern. The first meaning is a president as an irritant initiating required event series. Simply, the president only demonstrates governance work underway to elicit predictable behavioral algorithms from people, enabling use as a complex irritant for extensive process influence (similarly for all public figures).

Political opposition representatives criticizing any president indirectly support the second meaning that the president governs, while for opposition and observers, the third meaning suggests the opposition knows better what to do. The fourth is a power struggle. Such criticism somewhat legitimizes presidential power and governance in observers’ minds, though the first meaning is maintaining conditions for the president as an irritant launching required event series.

The impact system, in forming behavior algorithms, always uses complex situation structures.

Situation is a time segment during which one change of a living object (or nonliving object), reaction, conditions, or process occurs.

A situation always has the structure of the conditions in which it arose. Since each situation results from many processes, including those beyond current conditions, its structure covers many conditions forming it.

When involved in a process — as an observer — a person sees and understands only action sequences but not the situation’s structure. Since the process directs the person’s actions, initiating reactions with states preventing schematic perception of all processes forming the situation, people cannot determine real causes of situations without lengthy detailed analysis. This enables the impact system to conceal real causes while shaping many second meanings generated by people through erroneous cause identifications.

For example, logic — the sequence of mental transitions from one internal/external irritant to another with sequential description (a behavior algorithm set) — without a precise thinking system, is always erroneous. A precise thinking system is built only through complex concentrated intellectual work, strictly directed — such as when a person creates a system via description, diagram, model, device, construction, or other complex results proven viable interacting with real environment processes. Due to difficulty, many logically express opinions based solely on their and others’ fantasies, hence their statements are always erroneous. The impact system shapes their logic as “when it rains, the pavement is wet; now the pavement is wet, so it must be raining”. Lacking an exact thinking system, it ignores many possible phenomena: weather, dew, road washing, vehicle or cargo damage, water supply accident, dam break, natural disaster, illusions, observation time, and more. Consequently, the impact system often creates exchanges without meaning fit, for example, “1+1=1”, though in reality more like “5961*6284=48294014 (also wrong)”, unnoticed by people unable to verify rapidly. Understanding only meanings of words, most think they comprehend meanings, mechanisms, dynamics, but do not.

This grants the impact system many opportunities for engaging people in processes and forming erroneous thinking, enhancing its confidentiality.

Erroneous thinking forms similarly across all environment segments — political, educational, technological, productive, transport, trade, criminal, military, entertainment, and others. All involved people do not consider themselves irritants but, maintained in superiority states, are confident they are as perceived by others in third-level processes.

People with erroneous thinking may seem incapable of precise computations — scientific research, for example — but this is false. The impact system uses them, including weak intellect people, for achieving accurate results, based on not first but second, third, fourth, and other meanings. The system thus brings about scientific discoveries even by weak intellect individuals by directing different action trajectories. Moreover, those with precise thinking cannot do what those with erroneous thinking do, limiting precise thinking use in the current environment.

Humanity has accumulated vast second, third, fourth, and other meaning information, among it always finding second-meaning information confirming third-meaning information, and so forth. The impact system promotes producing information simultaneously confirmable and refutable, expanding its possibilities by using the same information to lead people with different experience, thinking, and reflexes to different and even opposite results.

Thus, the impact system directs division by organizations, functions, and meanings, forms behavior algorithms defending personal knowledge, skills, and abilities, and exploits people’s misunderstanding of complex situation structures, maintaining high operational confidentiality while remaining in plain view.