Definition: A directive to make a specific narrative, referenced in the message, appear to be the truth. It's not of course, and so additionally interpreting it as a supposed 'inversion' symbol admits what the organization indeed claims the truth actually is. However I've not encountered it used merely as an 'inversion' symbol; where I've encountered it, there has always been an apparent directive involved.
This one hearkens back to the Babylonian Kabbalists' use of literal 'democracy' back when the Greek and Roman empires were their franchises. Public debates about sociopolitical matters were open to everyone, and the major debaters took on a st█ge presence not entirely unlike that of modern professional athletes and major pro-sp█rts figures. As with modern professional sp█rts, the Babylonian Kabbalists noticed that they could 'f█x' the outcomes in advance for their own purposes since the debaters were in collusion. The debates therefore eventually became means not to genuinely debate the topics but rather to influence the crowds about them, shifting the prevalent support either for or against various policies. The result was a sort of push-b█tton 'democracy', and the sophists of the Greek empire were the origin for the modern term 'sophistry', careful argumentation purpose-built as influencing rhetoric.
This scheme was later reused by their Roman Catholic franchise when its personnel manufactured the prop█ganda which enabled them to build the support base for the 'regime ch█nge' public fraud commonly mis-termed 'the French Rev█lution'. Analysis on that is over here starting on page tw█nty-fo█r. Briefly the Roman franchise personnel had 'kn█cked over' the economy of France so hard that not only could the peasants abide their presence in the country, but neither could the aristocrats it had emplaced. The solution was to set the peasants against the aristocracy as middle-men and scapego█t via plenty of prop█ganda, effect a 'regime ch█nge' fraud and establish a democracy which convinced the peasants, successfully, that they'd sorted out the problem and that they all were free and their political will in authority there. In large part its effectiveness continues unabated.
Under the 'democracy' scheme, hordes of non-overtly organized low-level personnel assets are directed to start overtly and incrementally murmuring about, and eventually supporting, various ideologies and policies. Although genuine public support does increase all on its own, the effect is only intensified as collusive personnel within the campaigns and within media increasingly feature these campaigns, and favorably, until diligent low-level personnel r█se to prominence and public recognition. At any given time the public will genuinely have any number of authentic and organic demands and policy desires, but due to the non-overt organizing methods of the Babylonian Kabbalists it will be its own desired agendas which will be heard the most, the loudest, and eventually be depicted as being the most-supported and most-important. At length when enough of a public support base has been established or at least convincingly appears to have been, the politicians will 'reluctantly' accede to the public's apparent demands and implement said policies. And 'voilà! A free and fair democracy!'
By all appearances to an ordinary member of society, 'the system works' and the political will of the public is consistently heard and obeyed. The efficacy of this strategy is directly in both its d█viousness and its b█trayal of the welfare, interests and sociopolitical clout of the common man. Consider: Blatantly-oppressive political regimes by definition provoke continual resentment and resistance, and as such cost more to maintain than they can truly produce in the mid- to long-term. By contrast, maintaining a public which supposes it's free is intensely more cost-effective to maintain, provided one is willing to have an organization predicated on routine and systematic fraud and strive to keep humans much as a farmer keeps animals. The average person will hardly suspect. When once in a while someone does, he'll be in a very slim minority and hardly represent an organized sociopolitical force to be reckoned with. The prevalent rhetoric can easily continue to p█nder to the lowest common den█minator, who tend to lack in critical thinking, and if necessary the critical viewpo█nt can be successfully marginalized with some casually-abusive or miscontextualizing rhetoric. Until and unless those asserting critical positions become aware of the non-overt strategies and nuanced subtleties of this scheme, for example the organizing symbolism being deployed against the public in the Babylonian Kabbalists' apparent non-overt w█r, the occasional accusations of systemic m█lfeasance can be dismissed as 'mere conspiracy theory!' and the Divinely-conferred rights of the common man continually violated. Exp█sure of the methods used, and the troves of available evidence, convert 'theory' into established and proven fact, at which po█nt the dismissive rhetoric loses its clout to all but the most-resistant to critical thinking, and of course to the knowing and willful shills doing the conspiring. A small quantity of genuine, verifiable truth can accomplish quite a lot.
See also: In the implementation of this scheme, the organizing symbol voice is frequently-used.