[row of 5 shields]

THE PHALANX OF FREEDOM

Join the Phalanx of Freedom if you do not want to serve the tyrants who rule by the sword !

The Phalanx of Freedom is (ideally) a fully equipped and trained army, in the conventional and/or paramilitary and/or guerilla and/or resistance (etc) sense, which fights with words, political actions, threatening of military action, para-military resistance actions, conventional domestic warfare against domestic tyranny, and/or war by all means against an invading oppressor. It is earlier described in this system as a 'scheme 5' uprising, (the 'green flag' in this system), see here for full details: links_scheme5.html . It is limited in the sense that it would first have to transform into a `scheme 6' uprising, before it crosses borders to conquer new lands (following the 'scheme 6' rules in that case, flying its purple flag).

Ideally the Phalanx of Freedom initially mobilizes 10% of all people when tyranny is threatening (for example because the people follow insufficient laws), to make a threatening sound against a would be tyrant.

The purpose, goal, principle, ideal, etc, of the 'phalanx for freedom' (a general term, not local to a certain "fist") is:

 

[official scheme 5 flag]

 

Freedom of political Formation and Freedom of Speech -- for us and for our political opponents

Not included in those principles, not included in the defense by the Phalanx of Freedom, are:
- Rioting, assembling to destruct property.
- Assembling to commit crimes, to organize to commit petty crimes. Crimes here is narrowly defined as petty theft, murder and so on. Robbing, stealing, raping, murdering, generally for egotistical gains without having to work for it. This definition is not to be extended for political groups who have as part of their program an organized "mass robbery," because they do that for political reasons and only present a plan for which they have freedom of speech and assembly. They do not commit petty acts of robbery and murder to gain without work or to restructure an injustice. Organized crime is not protected. Organized crime posing as political is not protected, and that is also partially defined by amount of general support from the public for a certain cause, organization.
- Speech for political purposes, but exceeding the norms of decency or physical abuse. When people who are using equipment to shout at other people, or just generally shout at them, that may not be protected by the Phalanx of Freedom. Printing of books, reaching out using leaflets, using decent means to reach people with a political message that they can ignore or be interested in on encountering: that is the freedom of speech that the Phalanx of Freedom wishes to shed its blood for to defend and heap honor on itself doing so, from future generations in particular (who may have a more calm and objective outlook on the past).

 

  [scheme 5 flag, click to see 4.2 MB picture]
click to enlarge

  Note filled in 5 circles, which isn't exactly up to specifications.
You can do better no doubt.
Or maybe this design has its own appeal,
it brings back the same dots.
The goal in the open-circles design is to have that symbol resemble something tender, something that needs protection.
(The paint came out a little dark, sorry; it should thought of as green!.)  
 

[scheme 5 flag, lost-rigths configuration]  

This is not a mass draft program that says 'the more the better,' do what you think is right for you, thank you.

In general people below the age of 25 are considered too politically immature to serve under arms in this system.

Pictures: This shield is made of cardboard, clear tape, glue and some ink, having no structural or defensive capabilities. It weighs 62 grams. Its purpose is political rather then militarily, as such it belongs in the first phases of action, to the stage where the appeal is made to the people, to grow in numbers, to show that honor is on this side. It is assumed that the principle 'freedom of speech' is for all sides. It is important to realize that the Phalanx of Freedom is not a DAVID sister party, having any kind of political program whatsoever. It is only to protect mentioned 2 rights: SPEECH, ASSEMBLY. Under that goal all manner of conflicting opinions may interlock in the Phalanx to defend their mutual rights together and of others - even of the oppressors to speak and to organize.

The Phalanx of Freedom, scheme 5 uprising, is not a demand to have freedom of speech and assembly for 'us,' or to initiate a DAVID system revolution and so on. It is a general uprising. Typically the Phalanx of Freedom does not fly other colors or flags, except its own green and white. It is not encouraged that other movements fly the official scheme 5 green flag as part of their symbols (that is the flag with stripe, dots in circle and dots outside circle, or its greater form.) Other movements can however fly other colors and flags that use general symbols of this system, such as this shield (which is evidently not the green flag in either form, but a green on white version of the general 5 circles in one circle with divisions symbol - a general use symbol. You can not guess these distinctions between general and specific symbols, but you can find out by knowing the definitions.)

The Phalanx of Freedom works better if it is politically neutral. After Phalanx of Freedom activities have been had, people can always change to their political colors and do those activities. If the Phalanx of Freedom activities, or other similar activities (now or in the past) have been strategically successful and victorious, that must mean those political activities will be able to be pursued in an atmosphere where freedom of Speech and Assembly are guaranteed ... Once these groups break out in physical fights, it would again be time to assemble under the green flag (or something similar to the same end). [Phalanx of Freedom political shield, frontal view]

Second image: simple equal-weight counter-weight on the back (key chain, first thing encountered having that weight, no violence intended (yet); red/white/blue is from Dutch flag; it simply wraps around the arm, no knotting, stays ok thanks to weight.) [Phalanx of Freedom political shield, backside view] Thank you for your interest.

PS Because it is not discouraged to use the general symbol, it is encouraged (general PR, advertising). Hence it is encouraged other movements use this shield as well, with which they could claim their rights if they want to, and/or signal to the Phalanx of Freedom that they may need protection if the shields are attacked/broken. It is still discouraged to fly the scheme 5 flag, unless properly organized as such (or at least attempting hard enough to do it right, and being correctable for it.)

Freedom of Phalanx persons are encouraged to march in a separate formation from another political grouping they may also be part off, to maintain neutrality as best possible.

Abuse of these symbols in the sense of flying them and then committing riots and denying speech/assembly for others is bad and should be resisted by the proper Phalanx of Freedom ...

PPS Phalanx stands for 'phalanx of persons," and 'phalanx of people,' also for 'phalanx of movements and political ideologies.' A phalanx sporting, for example, a battalion from DAVID sister parties, a regiment USA Constitutionalists, a Division Confucius monks, 20 platoons liberals, and so on and so forth ... (Note the organizational doctrine of "fists," see details linked to above, maintaining independence and democracy.) A regiment capitalists right next to a regiment Marxist-communists, a regiment white supremacists next to a regiment blacks, a regiment Muslims next to a regiment Jesuscultists, a regiment Hindus next to a regiment Jews (although that would perhaps not be ideal for morale, it is an interesting image and the principle of it.) Rising up to defend with arms and war the minimum necessary to resolve all disputes peacefully, by reason and voting, reaching an agreement or agree to go different ways, in the same or in different nations ... Against the phalanx are those who support tyranny, who would use the sword to silence dissent just for the silencing. Who outlaw political organization because their guilty conscience is telling them that they have much to fear from the truth, unless they heap more crimes upon their crimes. ... I dare say: they will be few, and we will be many. Their designs benefit the few and hurt the many.

PPPS For the record and in case there is doubt: the next such shield may very well be made from ceramic plating tiles and Kevlar, sporting 10 holding clips with hand-grenades, showing machine guns, ammunition, light artillery and battle maps on the background ... If we can win through a Ghandi we will, but if we can't we will murder and kill if we have to - in order to throw off a yoke of tyranny, the people willing. Don't think that because this one is card-board implying a willingness to be beaten for a political goal (first), that another day there won't be bullets flying through those holes in the out going direction ... or that those bullets won't be aimed to kill, to slaughter the enemy by the millions if that is necessary.

Did that get through ? War is a serious 'business,' and so is all this. Card-board shields is merely a first stage, only in a nearly ideal case enough. If you can't stomach outright war, either don't get into this either, or plan to get out soon enough (and tell your commander your limits) so as not to waste resources on useless training / equipment. You've been warned. Even in this card-board stage you can get hurt, maimed, crippled and killed. I don't need to say that it isn't preferred that way, but it may be the unfortunate reality some where, some time, a reality that may call for killing and maiming in order to win, tactical & strategic maneuvering, operating equipment that is ultimately nothing more then knives cutting open throats and hearts ... Don't say I didn't warn you. Few tyrants go willingly with their tail behind their legs.

I don't think this is the place for rosy glassed half stoned hippies calling for peace and free weed, but if they think so they've been warned.

Tension between Speech and Assembly rights

There is a problematic tension between the right to speak and have certain opinions, and the right to assembly in order to exclude certain opinions and/or practices. To ruthlessly enforce speech cuts the right to assemble in order to exclude certain speech, while ruthlessly enforcing assembly rights cuts the right to free speech (because it protects the right to assemble around exclusion of certain opinions.) Assembly right comes in two flavors: non/sub-sovereign (some loose band of typically casual people) and sovereign (the People, the nation, the historical people ...). The sovereign form of assembly is typically more threatening to free speech, since the non-sovereign form is easily ignored and lived around (does not claim all land, no law of the land power).

Example: "I want to say anything all the time, and everyone saying everything all the time, therefore I want to disallow you to organize a club that throws out people who say something you don't like (non-sovereign); or (sovereign) therefore I want to disallow you to organize a nation that throws out people who say something - have certain non-criminal casual practices - you don't like." That is freedom of speech disallowing certain assemblies. Alternatively: "I want to assembly around certain opinions, and want to throw out and/or never hear other opinions or certain other opinions, such people must leave the club (non-sovereign); or (sovereign) must leave the nation." Clearly the sovereign is the main problem area, setting someone out of a club will often be relatively meaningless (unless the club is effectively the (local?) sovereign). Setting someone out of a nation is more serious, while letting people live in a nation that doesn't want them can likewise be seriously impacting them (denying them the freedom of their way).

[Phalanx of Freedom political shield, closeup]

Playing between that is the majority opinion (the majority assembly) of a nation, and the minority its need to have the right to split away to form its own sovereign on its own land or to move away to another sovereign.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly do not have to conflict. Someone wanting to assemble around horseback riding doesn't necessarily want to prevent someone saying something, or even that they like to eat horse meat or don't like horse back riding.

It would be a tyrannical over-stretch to say that speech always triumphs over assembly right, or the other way around - saying that is probably only going to defunct this attempt here by those disagreeing.

Because this is a neutral effort, as neutral as possible, loosely around the ideas of free speech and assembly, however wide or narrow one may want (or need!) to define it, I'm not proposing some kind of resolution here other then leaving it to the proper authorities in the system: the fists, the people, the nations etc etc.

*

I'd recognize the right to exclude certain opinions in an assembly and even entire nation (complete assembly rights, all the way into the far extreme of imaginable); I think that is a great right to have (as in: not being infringed upon by an overzealous `scheme 5' effort, either domestic or internationally). At the same time the fullest free speech, even into the right to insult, to disagree and to have different practices, seems great as well. Obviously one can not have both at the same time, in the same nation, under some choices. Presumably under extreme free speech rights certain extreme assembly rights are diminished, and under extreme assembly rights certain free speech rights may end up diminished (be a cause for banning such people who have divergent opinions from the assembly - which in general is a useful right indeed, to be able to ban people from an assembly for disagreeing.)

What does a tyrant do ? The tyrant both diminishes free speech and free assembly, so that they may rule unopposed and do their crimes without being challenged. The tyrant wants to diminish both rights, or to say differently: he wants to impose a certain assembly system on people, where critical free speech is effectively outlawed. Since the assembly is usually forced, it is not a free assembly but forced. An assembly to prevent another assembly that the people may rather choose. To eat up the time of the people, their energy, etc.

Hence, if the ultimate goal is to secure against such minority tyranny, then mainly all should be deemed well if most/all people are agreeing how either speech or assembly is being diminished. I suppose one could still try to ask that those disagreeing at least have the right to leave in peace. If the whole people agree to diminish certain free speech, then who is anyone to challenge that, either by force or by moral appeal ?

So I guess (making up something after all): Speech and Assembly are both independent, but some of the extremes are on a scale balance with each other, in which case all could still be fair and good and without tyranny if the balance itself is held up by the free majority opinion. After all the purpose of protecting these 2 rights is to secure real democracy. Meaning that if the people want tyranny, then there is nothing to complaign about ... and no power to do anything about it either.

The entire scheme-5 uprising system is moderated by the question: is it a good idea at all, at that place and nation / cultural region. Is it really going to do any good there, how ... If there is no satisfactory answer to that, or satisfactory feeling, going ahead is probably crazy and doomed (and insufficiently commanded as well). The system is envisioned to at least be led on the Brigade level, or higher (up to 64 x ~200.000 armies). An important reason for that, if not the only reason, it to have so many people that the quality of the greater decisions will be more general and accountible.


Sorry for this pedantic discussion of the subject, but there is no room for error or doubt with something like this.

Some further notes ...

Green flag displayed where it does not represent an actual Phalanx fist: with a red ribbon accross it, analogues to the sub-sovereign shoulder insignia, to denote it is "not really what it would otherwise mean." This would be proper flag protocol. The scheme5 flag can only be flown by an actual Phalanx fist (flag protocol).

[scheme5 flag (green flag) in a display with 2 red ribbons]

The documentation here on the Internet (or if printed in books) is not "a proper flag," it does not have the physical characteristics of a flag, hence flag protocol does not apply. A printed single paper of the flag, hanging vertically, does have flag characteristics and therefore should properly be displayed with a red ribben, unless there is an actual Phalanx fist. Apply rules with reason for the purpose of "not confusing people who see the scheme 5 flag." If they see a full scheme 5 flag, they should be confident there is an actual fist associated with it there. If they ask around or wait, they would find the owner being a Phalanx of Freedom member (etc).

Phalanx soldiers have the right to fly the scheme5 flag, have the flag in or outside their home and on their clothing or what they want, if their fist approves. They are the Phalanx of Freedom. They are not obligated to fly the scheme 5 flag by this flag protocol proposal, the matter is for the fists. [row of 5 shields]