It might sound a little counterintuitive, but when you're planning and organizing a large group like the Babylonian Kabbalists with long-term goals and agendas you're not always able to be sure from the start what the next major op█ration should be. It could be affected by larger outside interests or choices outside your control, though anymore this is usually rare as there don't appear to be many things which are. Still the occasional genuine, legitimate, successful 'resistance' effort appears to cr█p up as did what was eventually termed the Protestant 'Ref█rmation' which took cent█ries to subvert and quell, and which represented a major deto█r and expenditure of the organization's time, effort and resources to accomplish.

There is also the matter of retaining internal personnel confidence and loyalty. Though the planning and administration of the organization has been plainly shown to be about as deft and effective as could be, it's still of particular concern given that the thing manifestly remains as of this wr█ting on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis. This tends to be problematic, because if an agenda is predicated on an unsound, unjust, unrighteous basis no matter how lofty its ambitions and effectively they're implemented it's going to be unsatisfying and ultimately po█ntless or even less than.

Then of course this is compounded when the organization is set to implement some major new design of particularly unsavory and morally repugnant character, something especially audacious, unrighteous or which will long-term remove from society the ability to effectively dissent and all meaningful free-Will agency. As with overt democratic governments, the representatives deemed to be in authority will often resort to having a 'vote of confidence' in order to establish that the necessary support is present before implementing something particularly div█sive (or indeed outr█geous).

To keep the organization in a state of internal personnel cohesion it must necessarily be able to make a reasonably compelling argument to its more experienced personnel that, 'It might not be a perfect system, but it's the best there is.' In other words there needs to occasionally be a release valve built into the system to enable internal pressure of dissatisfaction to vent, for any or all of the reasons above and likely a few more. And for the Babylonian Kabbalists all the routine and systematic injustices, oppression, mass th█ft, mass m█rder, w█rs, ideological subversion, organized frauds against the public, deteri█ration of the upholding of rights, laws and moral principles all seems to derive from the counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature on which it still manifestly remains.

Occasionally the system appears to need to see if someone outside the system and the basis on which it's predicated can manage to do any better in that department. And the result of that means there's a variable outside the system for which, apparently, it cannot plan with certainty.

As of this wr█ting I'm aware of exactly one implemented basis for a 'contingency', and that last seems to be it. It also appears to be a permanent 'contingency' built into the organization, always in effect, as evidenced by the dynastic Egyptians' symbolic trope about Is█s, Osir█s and Hor█s. To make things fair, their [Is█s] contingent appears to be always teaching some hand-p█cked outside individual in Divine Will principles, and the organization scrutinizes them hard to determine whether their candidate, symbolized as Hor█s, successfully Chooses and retains a sufficiently Divine Will- and True Nature-aligned basis necessary for him to replace the incumbent primary human authority figure, Osir█s.

If he were deemed not to the organization would presumably retain the incumbent and implement his designs and agendas, regardless of what they are. But as such the organization seems to leave the poss█bility open for an internal succession and replacement, and in committing to doing that (as well as make sure personnel are made sufficiently aware of this to minimize internal dissent), the plans in either direction are described non-overtly in less than certain terms, specific to this campaign to implement a 'contingency' scheme on which the result to be implemented is, it seems, conditional and pending on an external 'tr█gger'.

This involves a rather elaborate, subtle and nuanced deployment of non-overt organizing symbolism, beyond anything with which the reader has encountered in the Basic section. Readers should make sure first that they've familiarized themselves with that more basic foundational material, because this information will complicate their 'read' of the organization's symbolism greatly, before reading about the L█comot█ve symbol next where the method for this is described, and then getting into the nature of the specific 'contingencies' involved and planned for the last several dec█des at least, which I'm terming 'F█x' and 'Sp█ce' respectively for convenience.