Groups or no Groups?

AntiNWO's final plan is A. It is a specific global full package with 10+2 Groups. AntiNWO has two other plans as well, Plan B and Plan C. Plan B is a process that could result in a specific grouping other than Plan A. In Plan C there are no Groups. This is something acceptable by AntiNWO. Many people have a very logical question. Should there be any Groups or is it better to have no Groups?

If having Groups is beneficial, then we should have Groups. If having Groups is harmful, then we should not have Groups. Beneficial and harmful need further explanation. It would be better to use the terms overall beneficial and overall harmful. In life, very often certain actions or situations have pros and cons. If pros far outweigh cons, something is overall beneficial. If cons far outweigh pros, something is overall harmful.

We will use an analogy to something that is familiar to most adults, relationships. Is it better to have a relationship or no relationship? It depends if the relationship is good or bad. It the relationship is bad, it is better to have no relationship. Otherwise, it is better to have a relationship. When a relationship is bad, there may be a few good moments but most of the time things are not good.

Whether Groups are beneficial or harmful depends on how Groups are. As we have explained, currently there are only two global full packages, NWO's and AntiNWO's. NWO's plan is overall harmful. It is much better to have no Groups rather than having NWO's plan. AntiNWO's plan is overall beneficial. If this magnificent plan is implemented, it could be better than having no Groups.

There may be some good things in NWO's plan but bad things are many more. Likewise, AntiNWO's plan is not perfect but as good as it can get. So NWO's plan is not all bad and AntiNWO's is not all good. But NWO's plan is overall bad while AntiNWO's is overall good. It is better to have no Groups than a bad plan with Groups. It is better to have a good plan with Groups than no Groups.

The two plans have significant differences at least in; a) grouping b) power of supranational entities c) type and authority of global body d) organizational and economic model for Groups e) Group relations. In all these areas, NWO's plan is overall bad while AntiNWO's overall good. We should add that NWO's package comes with a specific ideology which NWO's vicious cabal tries to impose on people.

It is better to have no Groups than a bad plan with Groups. It is better to have a good plan with Groups than no Groups. So what are the advantages of a good plan with Groups? There are not many advantages but these are important. There are almost two hundred countries in the world. Groups do some type of consolidation or aggregation.

Imagine a company that has ten employees. Although different employees may perform different tasks and have different responsibilities, most likely there are no departments in this company. Imagine a company that has two hundred employees. Most likely, this company will have divisions according to functions, products, geographic areas. If there are no divisions, the situation would be chaotic.

Imagine a military that has no squads, platoons, companies, battalions, brigades. The whole military is one unit. That would be chaotic as well. If there were around ten countries in the world, Groups would not be needed. Because there are almost two hundred countries in the world, having Groups may be helpful, only if the plan for Groups is good. It makes matters more orderly and organized and facilitates coordination.

We should point out that participation in EU is harmful for the economies of many countries, if not all of them because NWO's organizational and economic model for Groups is extremely malfunctioning. But there could be economic benefits from participating in a Group with a model that is not so much defective like NWO's (EU). Economic cooperation could increase productivity for every country and all countries could benefit.

There will not only be relations inside the Groups but also external relations among the Groups. Relations among two hundred countries could be extremely complex. Relations among 10+2 Groups are less complex and easier to manage. As it was explained in «Number and size of Groups», AntiNWO's plan has smaller and more Groups than NWO's.

In this way, Groups can function better and have closer relations between them. There was an effort to find the optimal number and size of Groups. If Groups were too small and too many, relations between them would get too complex. We should point out that relations between countries in different Groups will not be prohibited. These will be part of and assist the relations between the groups.

AntiNWO will bring peace and prosperity around the world. This will become much easier with the Groups. Without groups, this gets much harder. It is much easier and much more manageable to deal with 10+2 Groups than with more than two hundred countries. AntiNWO will deal with the Groups and the Groups will deal with the countries, under AntiNWO's guidance.

AntiNWO will assist Groups to make available to their members the best systems in the world in various areas. This is part of AntiNWO's plan for prosperity around the world. It will be optional for the countries to implement these systems but which country would not want to have the best systems in the world? Without the 10+2 Groups, it would be extremely difficult and complex to make the best systems available to almost two hundred countries.

Additionally, people generally prefer Groups, if they are beneficial, especially in smaller countries. Their preference may not be rational though. It gives them a sense of security, belonging and getting along with other people outside their country. In the case of EU, many people have a positive attitude towards EU because they erroneously assume that participation is beneficial, while in reality it is very harmful.

According to NWO's plan, the other three Unions will be exactly like EU, very harmful to most countries that participate. It should be very clear to everyone that participation in a Group can be beneficial or harmful, depending on how the Group is. It is better having no Groups, than Groups that are extremely harmful like EU. Having no Groups is something acceptable by AntiNWO.

It is not only acceptatle but preferable than NWO's defective plan. Currently, it seems that AntiNWO's final plan will be implemented because it was designed according to people's preferences and is people's choice. If for whatever reasons this is not possible, something not very likely, AntiNWO will proceed with Plan C. Things may have to get rough for some time but it is much better to have no Groups than NWO's extremely problematic plan.