Many small independent groups are forming and becoming active as a response to our loss of freedoms.   The ‘rule of six’ creates a problem when these groups meet.  The group I have joined is no different and this is my suggestion which may have added value.

=================

Is it so easy to forget that Freedom of Association is a basic right established in the development of civilisation?

Consequently Freedom of Association is recognised in The International Bill of Human Rights 1948 in Article 20.

Also in the First Amendment of the USA’s Bill of Rights.

In the UK the Human Rights Act 1998 establishes the right to peaceful assembly and association in Article 11.  But there are restrictions.

In a Parliamentary Memorandum to the Joint Committee on Human Rights we can read in clause 73 that, ‘any interference with Article 11 is justified and lawful to protect public health’.

There is not the protection we expected when a Government can subvert that law to suit temporary policies.

Do people realise the importance of their freedoms?  Some do not want to be awoken; the ‘woke’ do not appreciate that justice stems from freedom, respect and responsibility not a politically biased agenda.  Some accept what they see because they are expecting to wake up.

But the small groups of ‘red pilled’ are unprepared, disorganised, naïve, and lacking in understanding of the challenge, that face them.

To overcome the latest imposition I humbly submit this suggestion for consideration.  It is as follows:-

So many answers can be found in nature maybe all the answers are found in nature.  When multicellular life developed, life really took off on planet Earth.   We can mimic the proven methods of biological cell structure in economics, business, politics and conflicts.  This concept is not new and all will be aware of this as a favoured structure.

Perhaps ‘the rule of six’ imposition has handed us a unique opportunity to reform and organisation our group. Two major contributing problems that have got us into the mess we find ourselves are ‘big’ and ‘hierarchy’.

Big takes ownership away from the ground level, not just commercially with big business.  In party politics the bigger picture overrides local issues but also with Socialism where the ‘greater good’ is all one has to be concerned with.

Top down Hierarchy also takes away ownership and facilitates corruption and leads to autocratic decisions being made from afar.

Power tends to corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”                      Lord Acton 1887

Put these two concepts together and one has a controlling monster with little concern for freedoms, ownership, democracy, and especially ‘small’.

A cell begins at ground level.  It is small but its simplicity is a miracle of nature and miracles are so important.  By breaking down the ‘big’ into small units, democracy, ownership, and diversity is optimised with many other desirable benefits.  This reduction of responsibility is the fundamental basis of localism, bringing power down to the ground by sharing responsibilities.

But as if that is not enough there is another important value not missed by nature – the survival of the fittest.  Cellular organisations have a built-in defence creating security, integrity and sustainability.  A cell is a part of the whole and if other components become corrupted or destroyed there remains a collective security for the whole.  The importance of diversity cannot be understated and as a single voice may be lost in a noisy and subconsciously hierarchal ‘large group’ discussion. Within a cell there is less chance that a subtle perspective providing a unique solution will be lost.

The genius is that the cells each hold the template for the whole.  This is important as it provides each unit with a plan of the whole.  In politics this can be compared to subsidiarity where collective decision making can be made at the appropriate level when meeting the overall purpose.

If we take the limit of six and assume that as our limit to cell size, we see the advantages with an optimum five in terms of ownership, participation and contribution.  One of the keys to happiness is usefulness and participation.  For some this may not be available in large groups.

With the maximum size of a cell imposed we could reasonably put the minimum size as three, where some diversity of opinion can be found and decisions could at least be voted on.  Where a conflict occurs decisions can be put to the wider group.  If a sixth member joins a cell, action can be taken co-operating with other cells to create a new cell, thus allowing growth without jeopardising the maximum size of individual cells.

Meetings would be more meaningful when each person has a bigger share of the responsibility with processes and outcomes.  They would also be easier to host and organise.

Regardless of the legality of government impositions this structure may be far more rewarding, safe, productive and fluid than the present spontaneous organisation.  Please consider this Cellular Organisational Structure for the future of our group.

Where “individual ‘cells’… establish goals and tasks, administer those things, and troubleshoot difficulties.

The interaction between cells would also be important and networking is founded on good communication and a common sense of purpose supporting a robust organisation.

Internal cell structure can be formulated as an initial template.  Freedom to develop form, function and style of each cell then ensures independence and innovation.   But all with a common fundamental purpose.  As with a biological cell this would be the DNA of any political group.

This is a limited and short outline of my suggestion; a concept for the future, and as I stated, regardless of the legality of ‘the six rule’.

Beware do not put yourselves in a position of confrontation and conflict where you may not know the outcome.

Surely our mission must be to inform and persuade not pick fights with the authorities?

=================

At ground level we will be the whispering grass, the trees don’t need to know, yet!