The meaning of the white field is peace, the ultimate goal is a peace and to throw off a yoke of repression. * The meaning of the horizontal green bar is first that all persons are to have equal rights, not one above the other or above the law that holds for all. The second meaning of the horizontal bar is land, implying the freedom of the land to afford the people on it certain freedoms (denoted below in lettering): the fight is to create a free space on land. That the rest of the flag is below this bar signifying as if it where in the ground. This means our regret that we are not on the free land but are repressed under it, causing our need to fight to regain our essential freedoms of speech and assembly until we again are 'on the green bar with the freedoms.' The 'in the ground' means that it is as if we are dead, we are literally in the soil, which means that we regret that we have to go to war and that war is not nice, both a warning to us and our enemy that people can get killed.
* The words 'freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,' have an obvious meaning. They are the minimum essential freedoms we need in order to make the peaceful non-oppressive schemes work. We need freedom of speech for every kind of democracy, and we need freedom of assembly also probably for every kind of democracy, especially the kind of democracy of a DAVID-239 system, which requires literally groupings of people of 50 into voter-groups and councils. The words 'for all' can also be written as 'for us and our opponents' (space allowing that would be superior, where opponents refers to people we have disagreement with, but who do not opress us with weapons). This signifies that while military victory may be absolute and sovereign in the area, such a high level of domination is not the goal, but the goal is to step back from much of that direct power and let these freedoms flourish for any and all, even our own opponents (provided we have secured a victory and disarmed our enemies if that is necessary.) On the picture the words aren't in a neat circle, that has no meaning, they could be in a neat circle or not, but are grouped around the center symbol in some way, or on two sides of it (for example above and below, or to the two sides, so that the average placing of all letters is in the symbol roughly).
* The circle with 5 sectors and 5 smaller circles is a general symbol of a DAVID-239+ Government: councils, dividing into sections and 5 sub-councils. This is supposed to be a general symbol that denotes this system described on this site (www.socialism.nl). In this system the army also follows that system, and trains in it, in that sense it is also the symbol of the bottom-up democratic system of the army flying that flag. In case they do not have that kind of democracy in their army, do not have truth-companies for ideological 'warfare,' and do not properly train in the ways of a DAVID-239+ system, they do not have a moral right to fly that flag. I respectfully ask them not to fly this flag officially so as to not signal false information with it, or (better) meet its criteria (thanks.)
* The two crossed swords denote that this is a warfare effort, using actual weapons that will tend to kill enemies. It is also a symbol that comes back in the rank system here supplied, on the general ranks starting from Brigadier-General. A Brigadier oversees one Brigade and that is in this system suggested to be 3 regiments of 3 battalions of 5 companies of 4 platoons of 3 groups of 2 sections with each about 5 soldiers, so that is a big force. A field-grade force. This implies that it is an organized and disciplined fighting force, even if it where to fight a guerilla war in small detachments, that take orders centrally and have the discipline to carry out missions on a brigade size, be they combat missions or missions not to engage in combat. In this system two crossed swords are associated with a general rank, and therefore with discipline, which implies no wild atrocities or other wild unsanctioned actions.
* Below the two swords are 5 dots. These 5 dots refer to the fact that this military option is scheme number 5 in this proposal. That differentiates it from scheme number 4 and 3 for example, who also go to the sovereignty. By being scheme number 5, it is not scheme number 4, which means it is not the essential goal to establish a DAVID-239+ system wherever an army gains power, but to establish the political freedoms. It may be a good idea at times of great society chaos to establish a DAVID-239+ system anyway, but that would be like a disaster relief response to a non-military problem that is taken on by reason of being in that location. I suppose that this is a little bit of a slippery slope, and we would likely install DAVID-239+ systems if we can even make a minor argument that the people seem to want it and/or that it would address a pressing situation. But if there is order and people don't want it, then installing a DAVID-239+ system should be out of the question (it is a task of the free people that they can engage in using the conquested freedoms, or not). By leaving it for the people, we gain honor, which will play into our hands sooner or later.
The 5 dots and the circle with five dots or circles, also by themselves stand by themselves for graphical representations of 'assembly' (freedom of assembly) and 'separate but equal in right' (freedom of speech). The simplified form is simple enough for an arm badge.
The 5 dots are also an echo of the above army rank of Major-General (not to be confused with the conventional General-Major; Major-General is a 5 star rank here). As such it goes to the extremely large mobilizations, sizes big enough to conquer a nation.
Color: I have to admit that when I wanted to make this flag (which happened when I watched Alex Jones on Police State 4 and how the USA military was acting), that there was a green marker on the table. But I figured why not green (green being the color of Islam could become an asset in Arabia, because this is essentially a form of holy war for a holy purpose, which is what Islam calls Jihad, although immediate goals and ways to achieve justice may be different.) I think it looks OK with green on white, so let's keep that as the defining color.
I haven't thought about it before but given the meaning of this scheme 5 flag (for the whole campaign, so that could be for all armies who pursue a DAVID system), if you turn it upside down you get the horizontal bar below and the two rights above the bar, which would in the meaning of the flag denote victory, wouldn't it. Thus this flag in its normal configuration is both the identity of this scheme 5 military option, with a constitutional war flag it is a complaint that 'our rights have been buried into the ground and we are at war regain them above ground' (in our immediate neighborhood or somewhere else I guess). By itself it is a warning saying 'we will go to war for these political freedoms.' You could also fly it upside down in its victory configuration in areas where the given rights are established, which would make it less threatening on the surrounding society if training for a scheme 5 is taking place ('oh, they don't think these rights are challenged or substandard in this area, so we don't have to worry about them potentially going to war on this immediate area,' where if the rights where actually under threat in that area the people might enjoy seeing someone being bothered with that enough to mobilize. Flying it with a war combination says 'we are actually at war,' and then turning (the green flag) upside down again means 'we have secured our essential rights !'.
I note there is some risk that these organizations might end up being declared illegal (in some nations), which could (but doesn't always have to) be the right of free assembly being infringed upon. If literature, books, websites, and so on, are declared illegal that is a clear violation of the right of free speech.
Don't ask me what I have with turning flags upside down, nothing really. Cheaper that way ? I note that if the goal is to 'turn the flag upside down,' that a circular lettering without above/below works better.
When the flag is thus constantly in the 'freedoms good' position, that is also like a signal, especially after a past battle, to start to demobilize (for lack of reason to fight). Illustration: land, sea, air force, example ranking symbols for civilian non-military police (existing ranking systems are probably perfectly fine already, if not better; please do note that merely slapping on any of these 'rank' symbols is utterly useless and meaningless, and would serve only to muddy the water.)
The green bar above or below corresponds with the person or organization flying that flag its understanding of the immediate area and the status of these two political rights. If it is in the 'problem' configuration, the green bar above, it is also a call for help, naturally. Because this is the protocol, it would be considered 'wrong/bad' if it is flown wrong, or indeed an expression of tat person its estimate on the rights being secure or not (expression of opinion) particularly in case of doubt or disagreement about these rights their status in the immediate area.
However, and now it gets tricky: the territorial aspect of the green flag does not correspond to the constitutional war/peace flag. It may be that a duly organized and disciplined single Brigade finds it must/wants to fly the freedoms down for the immediate area they are in, and that they are flying a war flag because they are part of a war effort thousands of miles elsewhere. The green flag is like a territorial signal, but it isn't a declaration of war by itself against a defined area or target, not even with the war flag. One reason is that oftentimes you may not want to go to war at all, while you still believe these rights have been infringed upon sufficiently to declare them 'trodden down into the ground.' There are other ways of redressing the problem then going to war, even (or perhaps especially) for people organized in a scheme 5 military organization.
A proper public declaration of war against a specific target from a General alongside the first flying of a war flag, could help remedy the situation that the people in the area are in doubt about what is going on. But the system already calls for 2/3rd of the people having to explicitly support going to war, therefore it is highly unlikely (if the system is followed) that the people won't know what is going on; effectively they control the declaration of war, what the target is, and so on (they are, should be, and should be considered to be this army, which exists to service its needs against repression.)
When in doubt the green flag is flown in its happy green bar down position, to signal that these freedoms are established on the compound it is flying on. However I doubt whether a Brigade at least should ever be in doubt about the area it is in. If it is in doubt and fly the flag wrong then that would be worrying for their competence ? The flag protocol for a flag that is outside is to denote the situation outside the compound/camp, not inside. If the flag is wrong, people in the area could come and complaign, which may be useful (information and public will expression, being probably more accurate for larger military units, because that is more serious).
When in an area of war and/or fighting an enemy that does not respect these rights (I guess), then the freedoms are down as if to say 'this is why we fight you,' and 'join us, we even want your freedom.'
Units of all sizes including private soldiers can fly this flag and use it as a badge, and so on (that's the purpose: identification). The badge is good whatever side is up, as are the flags. Since the default position ('when in doubt') is 'rights up,' then the normal way for the badge is with the green bar below; but other way around is also ok (concerning units may have a personal reason, for example to constantly point to the situation in their area, to constantly say 'this is why we fight,' and because 'the front is everywhere and constantly around us,' and to constantly ask for help for getting the rights secured). Badges don't have to be changed from situation to situation, that is only for true flags (the default position of the constitutional peace flag is, of course 'peace,' because it is a 'wish for all peace (with justice)' even if there is war). (I hope I didn't make a mistake with these flag protocols.)
PPS There is a tension between fighting for freedom of speech and assembly and military discipline and following orders and not talking back to commanding officers. One solution is: it is a volunteer army, freedom of speech exists, as the freedom to leave, as the freedom of the army to make up its own conduct rules and assemble around those rules, and expelling people who do not want to follow these rules. Thus free speech is moderated by freedom of assembly. At the same time it may not be a bad idea that there is some tension between freedom of speech/assembly and military discipline, lest the latter gets too extreme. The house-command its role was organization-internal issues primarily, that would be the proper venue for a solution.