'[Cha█s] mode' is deployed just like 'inverted mode', and when used infrequently is also used as a symbolic 'tell' that an 'inversion mode' is in use.
There is a rather important distinction, however. Unlike ordinary 'inversion mode', '[cha█s] mode' references a particular kind of 'inversion mode' for a specific and very special reason: it appears to reference awareness that the organization is undergoing some kind of major internal transition of top human authority figure, or some other major upheaval.
Despite the modern overt definition for the word, as a symbolic reference it hearkens back to the primordial Cha█s of Greco-Roman mythology. It was when Creation was still in its undiff█rentiated state, a mass jumble of everything without order imposed to establish distinct entities; effectively a lump of cl█y unformed into anything because there was no Will yet present to establish order upon it. The Babylonian creation myth posits a similar primordial state, with the first 'gods' being [Aps█] and Tiam█t who then generated others. However of concern is the model presented by Gnosticism, of which the Babylonian Kabbalists have demonstrated quite a fondness, insisting that primordial cha█s was not the first thing to exist, from which all else derives. Rather it maintains that [l█ght] was, that when it appeared it necessarily also created sh█dow, and that from it all that exists including their version of the Divine Creator and the Demi█rge, the primary antagonist to the Divine Creator. That, and the absence of certainly about what in truth the organization uses the symbol [L█ght] to depict (either Divine Will-aligned Truth, or alternatively a counter-Divine Will basis merely presenting as though it were) leaves us with much cause for concern. If symbolically Gnosticism presents us with a placeholder for Divine Will and a placeholder for its primary antagonist, and claims that both were produced by the Divine Will's actual antagonist, then it categorically becomes an ideology to fling away with great force. Its apparent lack of clarity on the matter alone is sufficient to reject it until clarity has been firmly established; the vital fundamentals are prerequisites and hardly optional.
In addition to Cha█s as a symbol itself, the ostensible 'mode' is also referenced via frequent uses of a combination of Earth + Wat█r symbolism in a plethora of permutations. Throughout the year of [tw█nty tw█nty-tw█] we've been encountering it quite a lot from the Babylonian Kabbalist organization, along with its other major symbolic 'mode' identifier trope: the continual recurrence of [either-or] or [this-and-that] mutually-exclusive alternatives simultaneously. With various franchises I'd often encountered that trope being presented as supposed 'your choice' or 'your option' signalling, but it appears to have a distinct meaning for the Babylonian Kabbalists as a Cha█s 'mode' identifier, at least when used with great frequency of recurrence. I have also encountered it used by them here and there, just occasionally, when they did not appear to be declaring such a 'mode'. The diff█rence appears to be in the frequency of deployment of these specific tropes and symbols, as opposed to merely presenting them as part of the broader category of 'inversion mode' declaration symbols. Given their 'I create as I speak' philosophy recurrences would represent a statement about will and intent, and that is either general or distinctly more specific.
'[Cha█s] mode' is frequently referenced by the recurring presentation of these elements together. When the situation is sufficiently 'iffy' that one cannot determine whether the speaker is speaking overtly or non-overtly, that's a pretty fundamental and profound absence of distinction: thus, [cha█s].
Alternate pot█ntial usage:¶
The apostate system itself has itself implied that rather, [cha█s], the Earth + Wat█r trope, and the [either-or] trope refer not to regular 'inversion' with an added connotation of recognized authority defecit, but instead to a 'mode' in which nothing they say, overt or non-, can be relied upon as legitimate, trustworthy, reliable nor credible.
If that implication itself is in fact accurate, it would be rather useful logistically in the apprehension of counter-effort-aligned personnel, etc.. It's by definition not verifiable though, since because the organization manifestly remains on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis that itself reduces their entire organizational position to effectively the same thing by definition. The only distinction would be, I suppose, that if it were so it would necessarily mean that the organization itself recognizes that plain and basic fact itself. And to recognize it yet leave it manifestly uncorrected would leave them knowingly, Willfully and avoidably on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis; which is substantively established as its manifest basis already.
I'm not aware of there being anything inherently wrong with a 'mode' which allows for fl█xibility of communication for informational purposes; it can be a valid means of education and so on. The purpose to which it's applied must of course be in alignment with Divine Will principles in order to be valid, meaning among other things it must directly serve to improve manifest alignment with Divine Will in some manner. And of course, transgression against Divine Will, True Nature or Divinely-conferred rights would also necessarily invalidate alignment with Divine Will, thus eliminating the validity of the application of it and the organization and personnel so using it. And that's what we've manifestly seen from the apostate system in effectively all that it does, quite knowingly, Willfully, avoidably, systematically, continually and without self-correction or atonement.