AntiNWO’s Plan B 1
AntiNWO's Plan B 1
According to NWO's totally insane plan, there will be four pseudo-continental Unions; European, African, American, Asian. All will be like EU which is NWO's first step and the model for the other three pseudo-continental Unions. The four Unions will be under a Global Government controlled by NWO, so it will be a Global Dictatorship. This is how NWO plans to rule the world and enslave mankind.
In AntiNWO's Plan A there will be 10 + 2 Groups; 1) North America 2) Central and South America 3) Western Europe 4) Eastern Europe 5) Arab countries 6) North Sub-Saharan Africa 7) South Sub-Saharan Africa 8) Southwestern Asia 9) Northeastern Asia 10) Southeastern Asia and Oceania 11) India 12) China. In both plans, NWO's and AntiNWO's, the suggested Groups are continuous spatially.
NWO's suggested Unions have big population differences and lack of homogeneity. The ten AntiNWO's Groups are roughly equal in population and relatively homogeneous. They are definitely much more homogeneous than NWO's. Two very useful features in AntiNWO's plan are Subgroups and Regions. In addition to other benefits, with these more homogeneity can be achieved.
Another optional feature in AntiNWO's Plan A, something to be decided in the long term is Coalitions of Groups. There could be four Coalitions of Groups, each having a population of roughly two billion people, with today's numbers. These Coalitions can be spatially continuous or non continuous. The Coalitions resemble the four pseudo-continental Unions proposed in NWO's totally insane plan. AntiNWO's plan B uses the concept of Coalitions.
There could be four Coalitions of Groups with roughly two billion people each. Each coalition will have two or more Groups but these can be much different than the ones proposed in Plan A. China and India are treated as Groups because they have very large population. Unlike in Plan A, in Plan B GROUPS will NOT be EQUAL in population. Relations among Groups in the Coalition will be loose while relations among countries in the Groups will be closer. There will also be relations among Coalitions.
In a previous article, we used the name Groups for Coalitions because some readers may have not read about Coalitions or may not remember. The result is the same, the terms used change. If the four largest entities are called Coalitions, the first subdivision will be Groups. If the four largest entities are called Groups, the first subdivision will be Subgroups. We will call them Coalitions to be in accordance with AntiNWO's Plan A.
There are many possibilities to form these Coalitions. We will examine some cases but there are really endless alternatives. One reasoning that could be followed is to take into consideration the size of the economies. The four largest economies in purchasing power parity (ppp) are; China, USA, India, Russia. The next four largest are; Japan, Germany, Brazil, Indonesia. These are the REAL G8. Data are presented in Appendix 17.
Column 1 shows each country's GDP. Numbers are in millions of dollars. They are IMF's estimations for 2024. Column 2 calculates this number as percentage of World's GDP. Column 3 calculates the cumulative GDP and Column 4 shows it as a percentage of World's GDP. China has 20% of World's GDP and USA 15,7%. Together they have more than one third, 36%. The four largest economies have almost half of the world's GDP, 48%.
According to one reasoning that can be followed, each of the four largest economies should be in a different Coalition. So Coalition A can have China, Coalition B USA, Coalition C India and Coalition D Russia. The same reasoning can be followed for the next four countries. Real G8 have 60% of the World's GDP. So two of these countries could be in each Coalition.
One example is to have Japan in Coalition A with China, Brazil in Coalition B with USA, Indonesia in Coalition C with India and Germany in Coalition D with Russia. Or Germany could be with USA, Indonesia with China, Japan with Russia and India with Brazil. There are many other alternatives as well. We will not cover all of them. We just gave a couple of examples. Anyone interested can find all the combinations.
If possible, the same reasoning can be applied to the next four, three times, till REAL G20. So if we take the twelve largest economies, three should be in each Coalition. They have more than two thirds of World's GDP, 68%. The sixteen largest economies have three fourths of the world's GDP, 75%. Four should be in each Coalition. The twenty largest, have almost 80% of the world's GDP. Five should be in each Coalition.
It may not be possible to apply this reasoning to all twenty largest economies. But if it is followed, it should cover at least the four largest and perhaps the REAL G8 (eight largest). The more of the REAL G20 it can cover, the better it would be. If it can be applied to all real G20, 80% of the world's GDP will be somewhat evenly distributed in the four Coalitions.
Of course it is more important to have roughly equal populations. There will be rapid development in less advanced countries and their GDP will grow faster than in the more advanced. So having rouglhly equal populations comes first, it is mandatory. We should also mention the next ten largest economies; Taiwan, Thailand, Iran, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan, Nigeria, Netherlands, Malaysia, Philippines. As it has been explained, the largest economies are not the richest countries.
Groups are the building blocks of Coalitions. In Plan A, Coalitions are optional and the ten Groups should be roughly equal in population. In Plan B, Coalitions are required and they will have equal populations. So the Groups do not have to be roughly equal in population. In order to form a Group, at least two countries are needed but in most Groups there will be many more.
The population must also be taken into account. If the countries are big, only two could constitute a Group. If they are small, a lot more countries will be necessary. USA and Canada could comprise a Group because their population is more than three hundred and eighty million. Norway and Denmark can't be a Group on their own because their population is eleven and a half million. More countries should be added to that Group.
All features that have been described for Plan A can be used in Plan B; trading partners, decentralization of Group's employees, Group Parliament, Subgroups, Regions etc. Again, the only requirements for the Group would be to have a Ministry or Deputy Ministry for the Group Affairs. Groups could be divided in Subgroups and even Regions. Probably that will not be necessary because unlike in Plan A, Groups can be small and more homogeneous in Plan B.
Red line and recommendations Unnecessary packaging 1 Anti-NWO’s fine tuning Change weighted proportionality Capital decentralization & CIS Trading partners extended Trading partner status