Suppose you're a group of occ█ltists preoccupied with Willworking, and proponents of an ideology that, 'I create as I speak'. That's the meaning of the st█ge mag█c term, 'Abracad█bra', from the Aramaic 'avra kehd█bra' used by the Hebrews. Not only does the preoccupation with Willworking correlate with the idea that the organization is indeed working 'at the top' with supernatural entities, their 'do█ble purposing' of the concept of Mag█ck to mean 'non-overt efforts' to personnel who aren't yet familiar with these entities means the same ideologies are applied.
Whatever its basis, direct human Will or supernatural entities, the philosophy goes that the human conscious mind doesn't genuinely recognize the concept of 'Anti-', 'Not' or 'Non-'. If I sternly tell you for example not to think of p█nk eleph█nts, your mind automatically visualizes them immediately.
If you adopt the position that, 'I create as I speak' and apply it to non-overt organizing symbolism, that means you want to avoid non-overtly stating things you don't mean or want. That last sentence contained a 'do█ble negative' which even plain language seeks to avoid, and it makes an illustration of the concept. It would better have been said as, '...that means you want to only non-overtly state things you do mean or want.' And that kind of reformatting of symbol presentation is exactly what Babylonian Kabbalist personnel do. They non-overtly declare what they, or rather the organization, 'wants' per its agendas. To do otherwise would be deemed disloyalty.
This is why for example we continually hear terms like 'v█ccine hesitancy' and 'climate ch█nge deniers' (or more recently the even sillier 'climate deniers'; I'm not aware of anyone denying that climate exists). Or why we get terms like 'government anti-t█rrorism' and 'anti-f█scists' whose methods are typically distinctly f█scist in their implementation. Or why when the apostate system has decided to promote a given cause, the rank-and-file personnel will dutifully reference opposing positions respectively as, for example, 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion'. The hyped phrasing 'gives the n█d' to the agendas of the organization so that the lower-rung personnel can easily infer the desired agenda, while making the speaker's loyalties clear for their masters. Remember when people could advocate against a position without being regarded as 'homoph█bic', 'tr█nsph█bic', 'Islamoph█bic' or any other variety of '-ph█bic'? Not anymore, apparently. As schoolyard-taunt as it is to baselessly imply that the only reason you could poss█bly object to something is that you're 'sc█red' of it, there's a method to that kind of m█dness and this is it.
Now whether you're doing a literal mag█ckal Willworking or a non-overt incremental subversion maneuver, the linguistic problem occurs that you have tw█ states you're discussing: the state of things as they currently are, and the state you desire to bring about. You naturally have to make and keep a clear and firm distinction between these states, lest you be legitimately accused of untruthfulness for misrepresenting the current state or of disloyalty for de-emphasizing the desired state.
The Babylonian Kabbalists use negation concepts like 'Anti-', 'Not' and 'non-' for precisely this purpose. For a basic example, let's suppose it's literally d█rk where we are and I want you to t█rn on the l█ght for Me. I don't describe the situation as 'd█rk', I instead refer to it as 'unl█t'. It accurately describes the current state while still directing you to bring about the state I desire, and it signals My desire in support of it.
And through this, we can analyze and assess the various agendas of the apostate system at any given time. Here's a major historical example of it from the apostate system personnel-wr█tten 'Declaration of Independence':
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Lib█rty and the pursuit of H█ppiness."
The 'patriot' community has been fed quite a lot of rhetoric debating over whether 'unalienable' or 'inalienable' is more correct, and that one means that our rights supposedly are 'in a lien-able condition'. That's a distraction. Either w█y the important thing is that it non-overtly declares and organizes an effort by the apostate system to 'alienate us', that is, to make us foreigners, to our own God-given rights. And in the interim they appear to have accomplished this quite successfully as we can see from the results.
While we're at it, we can also notice that they invoked the Roman idol Lib█rtas and also [h█ppy], a derivative of Sm█le. The latter wasn't a common-usage derivative at the time of course; it overtly derived from the word 'happenstance', as in the ability to affect what happens to you; free agency over your own life. Only later, presumably as the result of subversion by the apostate system, did it overtly become synonymous with the supposed right to s█t there gr█nning contentedy like an idi█t. We can also see the trope repeated with "Independence"; that is, an effort to make the People dependent on the apostate system again.