Process for Coalitions

There are three thousand one hundred and fifty (3.150) possible combinations for Coalitions. Will the decision makers, the active supporters of AntiNWO's plan, have to examine and evaluate each one of all these possible combinations so that the best will be chosen? That would be not only extremely time consuming but an impossible task. Fortunately, AntiNWO's active supporters do not have to follow this process.

It is not as difficult as the number of combinations implies. The only "difficulty" would be reaching a compromise but the number of alternatives makes this less difficult. As a matter of fact, there might be only one decision taken, not to have Coalitions. These are optional in AntiNWO's plan and the first decision should be if there will be Coalitions. Suppose that the decision AntiNWO's active supporters make is to have Coalitions.

It may be easier to set China's and India's Coalitions first. This can be done regardless if these two countries are among leaders, the active supporters of AntiNWO's plan and participate in the decision making. If they are, they could choose the Groups they prefer, provided that no other Groups "must" have them in their Coalition. If they do not participate in the decision making, decision makers will assign to China's and India's Coalitions any Groups they like.

We will use again numbers for Groups because it is easier and takes less space. AntiNWO's Groups are; 1) North America 2) South & Central America 3) Western Europe 4) Eastern Europe & ACA 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. ACA is Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries.

As it was mentioned in "Coalitions' formation", there are ten (ten) possible alternatives for China's Coalition; 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7, 12-8, 12-9, 12-10. Suppose that China selects Northeastern Asian Group 9. There are nine (9) options for India; 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8, 11-10. Suppose that India chooses Southeastern Asian and Oceanian Group 10. There are eight Groups left; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

These should form two Coalitions with four Groups each. There are thirty five (35) possible combinations. But this number is much lower than three thousand one hundred and fifty (3.150). So by assigning first two Groups to India's and China's Coalitions, the number of possible combinations decreases significantly and makes the process easier. Still thirty five (35) alternatives are not only a few.

Luckily, the decision makers will not have to examine each one of the thirty five (35) alternatives but the Coalitions will result with some kind of reasoning. One possibility is 1-2-3-4, 5-6-7-8. The two American Groups are together with the two European Groups and the two Muslim Groups are together with the two Subsaharan African Groups. This alternative has some problems because 3 and 8 are problematic Groups.

Another possibility is 1-4-5-7 and 2-3-6-8. There is a mix from all continents in each Coaltion, America, Europe, Africa, Asia. Arab Group 5 is in Africa and Asia. Obviously, the opposite process could be followed. Instead of assigning two Groups to India's and China's Coalitions, four Groups could form a Coalition, if it is very clear how this Coalition should be.

Let's assume that North America, South & Central America, Eastern Europe, Arab Group, China, India are the active supporters of AntiNWO's plan that make the decision. There could be a Coalition 1-2-4-5. The remaining six Groups would be 3-6-7-8-9-10. China and India could choose two Groups and the remaining four could be the Coalition of laggards or leftovers.

The two problematic Groups are Western European 3 and Southwestern Asian 8. Suppose these were assigned to China and India; a) 12-8, 11-3 b) 12-3, 11-8. The remaining Groups are; 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. Again, there are thirty five (35) combinations but some reasoning could be followed. One option is 1-2-4-5, 6-7-9-10. Another would be 1, 4, 6, 9 and 2, 5, 7, 10.

A possibility is Northern and Southern Coalition; 1-3-4-9, 2-6-7-10. Northern has the four most economically advanced Groups. Southern contains the two Subsaharan, 6 and 7, which are the least advanced. The two other Coalitions would be; a) 12-5, 11-8 b) 12-8, 11-5. So it will be China with one (all) Muslim Group and India with the other (all) Muslim Group.

Although there are truly three thousand one hundred and fifty (3.150) combinations, the alternatives that would be CONSIDERED will NOT be that MANY. The options for consideration could be less than twenty or a single number. Each one of the decision makers will have a few options prepared on how Coalitions should be. Obviously, there will be differences. So AntiNWO's active supporters will have to reach a COMPROMISE.

There is a positive aspect of not having all Groups participate in the decision making. It is EASIER to reach a compromise when the PARTICIPANTS in decision making are FEWER. Also the decision will be more FAVORABLE. So it is good for AntiNWO's active supporters that not all will participate. It is only bad for NWO's supporters because they will have to accept the decision others make and most likely it would be a bad placement for them.

It is probably better not to have an early agreement on Coalitions. First Groups must proceed. It is NOT NECESSARY to have ALL countries from start. It can only be a CORE of countries. It does NOT even have to be a FORMAL Group. This is what is actually happening currently. It seems that North America, South & Central America, Eastern Europe, Arab Group, China and India are the active supporters of AntiNWO's plan.

Not all but some countries from the potential Groups have formed unofficial cores and cooperate to implement AntiNWO's spectacular plan. In Eastern Europe, it is most of CIS and a few other countries. At the same time, NWO's fanatics, mainly in EU, proceed with NWO's plan. The superiority of AntiNWO's plan is evident to everyone and it is certain that eventually it will prevail.

In 1995, Western European Group  started with six (6) countries only. By 1995, Western European countries had become fourteen (14). There was one (1) outcast, the only Eastern European country, Greece. No wonder it eventually defaulted in 2010. In 2004, Malta was added and the number of Western European countries became fifteen (15). Unfortunately, a big mistake was done and more Eastern European countries joined. That mistake must be corrected.

The point is that only a few countries can start a Group and this can be informal for some period. Then Groups should establish relations among them and the 10+2 Council will assist. Relations between countries is part of Group relations. When establishing relations, they should HAVE in MIND the option of Coalitions because Groups that have closer relations will form a Coalition. But there will also be relations between countries and Groups in different Coalitions.