Only two global full packages

Many people around the world, including many politicians, do not understand two very simple things; a) there are only two global plans b) these are full packages. The only two global plans are NWO's and AntiNWO's. Someone can choose only one of the two. A politician or a voter can either accept the whole package or reject the whole package.

The two packages are full because they include AT LEAST; a) grouping b) power of supranational entities c) type and authority of global body d) organizational and economic model for Groups. These were explained in ″NWO's vs AntiNWO's plan". The two full packages have considerable differences in all these areas. Some other areas could also be added like Group relations or ideology.

These two packages are global because the grouping includes the whole world and a global body. We should point out that some countries have their own preferences for their Group. For instance, Turkiye would like to be in a Group that resembles Ottoman Empire. These preferences are not global plans and are not full packages. They are not included in the choices of the global full packages which are only two.

Can someone reject both packages? Yes, there is a third alternative but this is not a global full package. The third alternative is AntiNWO's Plan C, no Groups. So there are only three alternatives; 1) NWO's plan 2) AntiNWO's final plan 3) AntiNWO's plan C. But there are only two global full packages. Plan C is not a global full package but the absence of any Group.

There were many previous articles regarding AntiNWO's plan B. We are not going to repeat what was explained in several articles. Plan B is not a specific plan but a process that could lead to a specific plan. Plan B is vague. NWO's plan is extremely malfunctioning but specific. AntiNWO has to present a specific plan as well. Among all possible alternatives in Plan B, Plan A is the best and AntiNWO's final Plan.

Nevertheless, if they manage to agree on a Plan B alternative other than AntiNWO's final Plan, it will be acceptable by AntiNWO. Currently, this seems very unlikely. Plan A is not only the best but also the one that could get broader acceptance. All other alternatives are inferior than Plan A and it does not seem that anyone will get as broad acceptance.

It seems that support for Plan A is much larger than support for any other alternative in Plan B. AntiNWO examined all possible alternatives. There are many that are better than NWO's plan. But AntiNWO's final plan is the best possible alternative. So if there is one or more other global full packages in the future, they could be better than NWO's plan but not as good as AntiNWO's final plan.

For the sake of argument, suppose that they are better, something not likely. These will be implemented instead of NWO's plan. In any case, whether global full packages that might be presented in the future will be better or not than AntiNWO's final plan, NWO's plan will not proceed. In all alternatives, Europe is divided in at least two Groups. There is no alternative in Plan B with EU.

EU is part of NWO's full global package. EU goes together with American, Asian, African Union. The package also includes powerless nations, abolition of nations in the long run, global government, free movement (of people, products, capital), bureaucracy, a complex and wasteful Group model etc. When someone supports EU, he or she has to take the whole package because EU is part of a full package.

It is not just global government but continental and global dictatorship. NWO's vicious cabal will control the four pseudo-continental Unions (European, African, American, Asian) and the Global Government. They will impose their will and their ideology on people. A specific ideology is also part of NWO's full package. Currently, NWO's vicious cabal controls EU which is NWO's cornerstone, the first and most important step.

They impose NWO's ideology on the people that are extremely unlucky to be residents of an EU member country. AntiNWO does not want to impose an ideology on people because it gives power to nations. Ideological battles should be settled in countries with national elections. Ideology could also be a difference between the two full packages. NWO's package comes with a specific ideology while AntiNWO leaves ideological issues to be decided in nations.

Group relations is also another difference. NWO's plan has in the long run FREE MOVEMENT of people, products, capital not only inside Groups but BETWEEN GROUPS as well. Something like that is not in AntiNWO's plan but easier movement could be facilitated. In AntiNWO's Plan, there is a chapter regarding Group relations. Some of the points were presented in previous articles.

AntiNWO's plan has more flexibility. Many points are recommended but not mandatory. But there are points that are not optional. Further division of Groups with Subgroups and Regions is highly recommended wherever possible but not required. There is some flexibility regarding the fine tuning of the grouping, the composition of the Groups. But the broad guidelines of grouping have to be followed.

There must be 10+2 Groups; 1) North America 2) South & Central America 3) Western Europe 4) Eastern Europe and Central Asia 5) Arab countries 6) Northern Subsaharan Africa 7) Southern Subsaharan Africa 8) Southwestern Asia 9) Northeastern Asia 10) Southeastern Asia and Oceania 11) India 12) China. In the context of these Groups, fine tuning is acceptable.

Italy could participate in Eastern European Group instead of Poland, Czechia, Baltic countries. This does not seem very likely but it will be acceptable by AntiNWO if it happens. Also, theoritically Turkiye could participate in Eastern European Group instead of ACA (Azerbaijan Central Asia) but in reality this is almost impossible to happen. Nevertheless, it will be acceptable by AntiNWO.

There is more fine tuning that can be done in other Groups. Syria and Lebanon  could participate in Southwestern Asian Group. Cuba and some Caribbean countries could participate in North American Group. In almost all Groups, there is flexibility in fine tuning regarding their composition but there is no flexibility regarding the broad guidelines. Having the Groups described above is mandatory, not optional.

Power to nations is mandatory. Supranational entities will have the minimum authority required for their proper functioning. But how much minimum is will be decided by the Groups. A Group could decide that no supranational authority is required for its proper functioning. Likewise, absence of global government is not optional but required. Instead, there will be the 10+2 Council for global issues only.

If people do not want to get NWO's global full package, they should support AntiNWO's plan which is also a global full package. Because currently, there is no other global full package and it does not seem that there will be one in the future. Those that do not support AntiNWO's plan will be assisting NWO's plan to proceed. No people in their right minds would prefer NWO's plan over AntiNWO's.