Coalitions' cases

AntiNWO's Coalitions of Groups or Mega-Groups are far superior than NWO's Unions. They are optional. The leaders of AntiNWO's plan will decide whether there will be Coalitions and how these will be. The leaders are the biggest supporters of AntiNWO's plan. Currently it seems that the leaders will be North America, South & Central America, Eastern Europe, Arab countries, China and perhaps India.

The biggest opponents of AntiNWO's plan are Western European NWO governments. Also Southwestern Asian Group is in the wrong direction (mostly because of Turkiye). These are the laggards. The rest are in between. But there is considerable uncertainty and things could change in the future. We do not know what the leaders will decide. We do not even know which Groups will be the leaders.

Obviously, they will not all want the same alternative so it has to be some COMPROMISE. We will comment on the cases presented in "Coalitions of Groups" but we are not suggesting that these are more likely to happen. They are just examples. Any one of the three thousand one hundred and fifty (3.150) Coalitions' combinations could be decided by the leaders and the followers will have to accept it.

We will keep using numbers for Groups since it is easier and takes less space. We should remind that AntiNWO's Groups are; 1) North America 2) South & Central America 3) Western Europe 4) Eastern Europe 5) Arab Group 6) Northern Subsaharan Africa 7) Southern Subsaharan Africa 8) Southwestern Asia 9) Northeastern Asia 10) Southeastern Asia & Oceania 11) India 12) China.

Let's start with Example A; 12-9, 11-10, 1-2-3-4, 8-5-6-7. The two American and the two European Groups are in the same Coalition. In NWO's ridiculous plan there is American Union and European Union. This Coalition includes both of them plus Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) which is in Asian Union, according to NWO's foolish plan that has failed tremendously.

The two Muslim Groups (8 - 5) and the two Subsaharan Groups (6 - 7) are also in the same Coalition. Arab Group 5 has a part in Northern Africa and a part in Asia. The African part connects the two Muslim Groups with the two Subsaharan Groups. In NWO's silly plan, there is African Union. This Coalition includes all African Union plus the Muslim countries of Southwestern Asia.

But there are problems with this option for Coalitions. As matters stand currently, relations between Western and Eastern Europe will be very distant or non existent. So they can't be in the same Coalition. Also, Western Europe and North America are economic competitors. They are the most economically advanced Groups, North American is first. If a reasoning that mixes Groups in terms of income is followed, they have to be in different Coalitions.

There is geographical proximity in Example A. The Groups in Coalitions are next to each other. Northeastern Asian Group 9 is next to China and Southwestern Asian (plus Oceania) Group 10 is next to India. The American continent is separated by two oceans from the rest of the world. After Atlantic Ocean, there is Western European Group 3, Arab Group 5 and Northern Subsaharan African Group 6.

So if the Groups closest to the American continent were chosen, it would have to be Arab Group or Northern Subsaharan Africa instead of Eastern Europe. On the other side of the American continent is Asia, after Pacific Ocean. The Groups that are closer to the two American are Northeastern Asian Group 9 and Southwestern Asian (plus Oceania) Group 10.

These are together with the two American Groups in Example B; 12-4, 11-8, 1-2-9-10, 3-5-6-7. In this option, there is also geographical proximity, the Groups in the Coalitions are next to each other. Eastern European Group 4 is next to China, Southwestern Asian Group 8 is next to India. Mediterranean Sea is between Western European Group 4 and Arab Group 5 but they are close.

The Coalitions of Example C are; 12-9, 11-10, 1-2-4-5, 3-8-6-7. The biggest supporters of AntiNWO's plan are in the same Coalition (1-2-4-5). This Coalition contains a LARGE PART of OIL and GAS RESOURCES. We should remind that ACA (Azerbaijan - Central Asian countries) will be included in Eastern European Group. This Coalition also ENCIRCLES and ISOLATES geographically the two laggard Groups, Western European 3 and Southwestern Asian 8.

This is done more with NWO's STRONGHOLD, Western Europe, as it can be seen in a map. WESTERN EUROPE could be CUT OFF from the rest of the world. Also, Western Europe will plunge into DEEP RECESSION FOREVER if it has to depend mostly on renewable energy resources. Western Europe could be in BIG TROUBLE for CENTURIES. Western European voters must GET RID of NWO GOVERNMENTS the SOONEST POSSIBLE.

In Example C, the two most problematic Groups (3-8) are placed in the same Coalition. They are together with the two Subsaharan African Groups, 6 and 7. But the other two can be any two Groups. According to an opinion, the other two should also be laggard Groups as well. Another alternative is to place the two most problematic Groups with China and India; a) 3-12, 8-11 b) 3-11, 8-12.

The Coalitions of Example D are; 1-4-7-9, 2-3-6-10, 12-8, 11-5. In the two of them, there is a mix of Groups from all continents. The first two Coalitions have one Group from America, one from Europe, one form Africa and one from Asia. There are many more ways we could get such Coalitions. This is not possible in the case of China's and India's Coalitions since there are only two Groups.

In Example E the Coalitions are; 12-2, 11-1, 3-8-6-10, 4-5-7-9. China and India are placed with the two American Groups. But China and India could be placed with the two European Groups, (12-4 and 11-3 or 12-3 and 11-4), the two Subsaharan African Groups (12-6 and 11-7 or 12-7 and 11-6) or the two Muslim Groups (12-8 and 11-5 or 12-5 and 11-8). That could be a process followed in deciding the Coalitions' composition.

Suppose that China and India are among the leaders and participate in the decision making. They could pick a Group for their Coalition. What If another Group needs one of the Groups in their Coalition? Perhaps China or India could agree to get their second choice. If China's and India's Coalitions are set, it would be easier to make two Coalitions of four with eight Groups.

We should emphasize that there will be relations between countries and Groups in different Coalitions. Groups in the same Coalition will have closer relations, compared to relations with other Groups. But these relations will be loose, compared to the ones inside the Groups. If there are Coalitions, the three levels would be; a) Groups b) Coalitions c) 10+2 Council. Regions and Subgroups are optional but recommended wherever they are possible.