'Mode' symbols

In addition to using various symbols, Babylonian Kabbalist non-overt lingo (and indeed many other non-overt languages, usually derivative 'layers' used by its franchises) make use of diff█rent 'modes' which need to be addressed. Let's start here by likening them to overt equivalents with which the reader will already be familiar. With sarcasm or fac█tiousness for example, we know the speaker is using a manner of speaking in which what they say isn't meant to be interpreted literally. They're instead getting at the truth indirectly, and the listener is supposed to know this and 'invert' their expressed meaning in some w█y to get at the idea the speaker is actually trying to communicate. It's the job of the listener to notice when sarcasm is being employed, consider the message and its context, and determine from that what the speaker actually meant by 'inverting' it correctly in whatever manner seems to make the most sense. It's much the same here; nothing terribly complicated. There are certain prevalently-accepted 'tells' of when a speaker is declaring sarcasm, like a certain type of voice or deliberately presenting an exaggerated statement which is very obviously not being interpreted correctly unless it's parsed as sarcasm. And there is a simple, basic, consistent ruleset for parsing sarcastic comments accurately. When both speaker and listener know and apply these, it's a social convention which consistently works and provides for greater freedom of expression.

Non-overt 'modes' do the same thing. Certain symbols (the specific ones vary for each 'layer' being used) are the clear 'tells' of which 'mode' is being used, rather than just implying it through, say, tone of voice as overt sarcasm does. It's these 'modes' and symbols which are addressed for Babylonian Kabbalist lingo in these sections.

As for the ruleset, that's pretty basic and very consistent too. There is what we could term 'stand█rd mode', in which the symbolism is presented 'normally'. This is the default 'mode', and is occasionally confirmed (though it isn't usually necessary to do so) with symbols like [sil█nce] which apply their No 'Anti-' convention to get at the idea that as long as the basics are being observed, the messaging is being correctly interpreted. But the other 'modes' usually involve some amount of symbolic 'inversion'; we can think of the overt equivalent of declaring it to be 'Opposite D█y', where their statements etc. are meant to be interpreted with one additional 'inversion' figured in to whatever they've said. And just like 'Opposite D█y' it's not a literal d█y; it ends whenever they decide it's over. The ruleset for 'inversion mode' symbolism appears to have just tw█ rules, and is very internally-consistent:

• Messaging is to be interpreted with one part of the symbolic meaning 'inverted'

• Symbols which would ordinarily (supposedly) add an 'inversion' concept to the message (such as dece█t, or any of the counter-Divine Will symbols) do one of tw█ things: either they 'use up' the required 'inversion' which 'inverted mode' symbolism exp█cts via the previous rule, or instead they add an additional 'inversion' to the message so that now for example tw█ things somewhere within the message must be 'inverted' in order to correctly parse it. Additional instances of 'inversion' symbols also 'st█ck', with the result being that a given message could theoretically have any number of 'inversions' added which need to be accounted for in order to extract its meaning. It's complicated, but each are clearly-declared.

The ruleset is s█mple and internally-consistent. The complexity it adds however frequently is not.

This appears to be much of the purpose of 'inversion modes'. By its very nature, non-overt communication is designed to be clear but not transparent to those who aren't intended to be able to understand it. By adding this complexity, the organization keeps for example 'resistance' personnel from being able to recognize what's going on. It also enables enough complexity that the definitions of symbols themselves become less-recognizable for those not yet familiar with the Babylonian Kabbalist lingo, because their usage and relevance shows less of an obvious, recurring, direct equivalent between the messaging and the situation. It 'throws off' those less-familiar with the non-overt lingo, making it less easy to 'suss out' what's being communicated or even the nature of the system of lingo being used. This makes it very effective and useful for a cryptocracy like the Babylonian Kabbalists, who want the directives and messaging readily-interprable to the senior and more experienced personnel and less so for newer recruits whose loyalties haven't yet been ascertained. The formula there is much like that Mamet quote about, 'Old age and tre█chery will always be█t youth and exuberance'; that's pretty much the Babylonian Kabbalist organizational mentality. It keeps the personnel 'on top' at 'the top', and the underlings, m█lcontents and the general public sufficiently clu█less that they're influenced by them but unable to organize against them for their own interests.

Additionally, knowing what elements of a symbolic message to 'invert' requires familiarity with the organizing symbolism definitions, the organization's usual procedures, and the context of the situation it's discussing that those outgroup categories of people generally don't often have. Gaining that requires experience and familiarity, and the organizational formula typically means that those aren't acquired without a long pattern of loyalty to the organization. Result: It's a practice which 'shifts the odds' in the favor of the organization at the expense of the interests of its new recruits and its would-be opponents.

More experienced and accomplished Babylonian Kabbalist personnel tend to use ostensible 'inversion modes' routinely, perhaps because they infer, likely correctly, that doing so will make their activities less recognizable to outsiders and thus make them safer at least with regard to human-implemented justice. It places them 'f█rther away from the fr█nt l█nes', so to speak. This is also generally true of nations, franchises and particular venues in which the Babylonian Kabbalists have been active much longer and managed to successfully 'entr█nch themselves' systematically. Overt politicians in government for example routinely use supposed 'inverted mode', which makes it apparent to those familiar with it that the corr█ption in overt governments is systemic and end█mic. 'Inverted mode' rather than 'stand█rd mode' is also systematic and routine throughout Br█tain, at least as depicted through the Br█tish media; it's unlikely that non-overtly-aware personnel in, say, outlying rural farming areas necessarily use it. And in general, personnel within the various overt 'int█lligence' agencies and those who'd been recruited via the stereotypical 'organized crime' franchise tend to make supposed 'inverted mode' their norm. But it's not itself an indication that someone is 'big' within the Babylonian Kabbalist organization, per se; it's just something that the more-experienced personnel tend to use more frequently as their norm. That the longer-serving personnel so tend to achieve more 'important' positions (whether overtly or non-) as a result is just a matter of how the organization works.

The prevalent idea among the majority of 'troothers' that 'the gl█balists' deploy an ultra-s█mple method of symbolic organizing lingo which anyone can suss out within a matter of minutes rather than years of in-group experience and familiarity, let alone the idea of 'finding the gl█balists and br█nging them to justice' without knowing how their more adv█nced symbolic formats work, is quite silly and rather fanciful. It appears to have been deliberately propagated and encouraged by 'troother guru' disinfo prop█gandists who are usually themselves working for the Babylonian Kabbalists. It's a bit like the unfounded arrogance with which the average person tends to assume that l█p-reading is a comparatively easy skill that they could learn in a few hours if they ever had to. Try it sometime. In making the symbolic lingo openly-available I h█pe to at least provide dilligent people who genuinely want justice to at least have a fair ch█nce at it ,reducing the lifetime of dedication required by personnel of the organization to a matter of perhaps a year or so of practice for the general public.