Reasonings for Coalitions 2
Reasonings for Coalitions 2
The three cases for Northern & Eastern European Group E2 are in lines 16, 17 and18 (Table A, Appendix 31). E2-A2-A3 has two American Groups and E2-M2-M3 two Muslim Groups. Only E2-A2-M3 in line 18 has a mix of Groups from different parts of the world. In the examples of Table A (Appendix 31), Groups from Subsaharan Africa and the rest of Asia and Oceania were not included.
In COLUMNS 4-6 in Table B of Appendix 31, we give ten more examples that include S1-S4 and R1-R4. Since we do not know yet the composition of S (Subsaharan) and R (Rest of Asia and Oceania) Groups, we use the average size. As we can see, all four Coalitions (lines 1-4) are within ±2 range (23-27%) and all six Subcoalitions (lines 5-10) are within ±1 range (11,5-13,5%). The GROUPING in Table A of Appendix 31 was done in such a MANNER that COALITIONS are CLOSE to 25% and SUBCOALITIONS CLOSE to 12,5%.
It is a VERY GOOD GROUPING. Decision makers must decide about a) composition of Groups (grouping) b) composition of Subcoalitions and Coalitions. If they adopt the Grouping in Appendix 31 (Tables A of Appendices 26, 27, 28) with 8 more Groups in Subsaharan Africa and the rest of Asia and Oceania, most of the Coalitions will be close to 25% and most of Subcoalitions close to 12,5%.
If decision makers choose to adopt the grouping suggested, they only need to FIND a REASONING or a MIX of REASONINGS to follow regarding the formation of Subcoalitions and Coalitions. So far, we explained two reasonings. One is spatial or geographic proximity, Groups are one next to the other. The second is geographic or spatial mix, having in a Subcoalition or a Coalition Groups from different parts of the world.
Similar to geographic mix is ECONOMIC LEVEL MIX. In a Subcoalition or a Coalition, there are Groups with different levels of economic development. The opposite of this is having together Groups that are closer in terms of economic development. This is somehow similar to geographic proximity. We could call it ECONOMIC PROXIMITY. Groups that are close in terms of economic development (usually shown by per capita income) will be together.
The Group with the highest per capita income is North American A1. Second is Western European E1 and third Northern & Eastern European E2. With the participation of Scandinavia - Finland - Austria, the Group's average per capita income has increased. Fourth is probably Northern Eastern Asian R1 that has Japan, South Korea and some other countries. We do not know the composition of this Group yet.
If the economic proximity is followed, these four Groups (A1-E1-E2-R1) that have the highest per capita income should be in the same Coalition. If the ECONOMIC MIX is followed, they should be in different Coalitions. Another reasoning is AVAILABILITY. This is a very PRACTICAL and FEASIBLE reasoning. Not all Groups support AntiNWO's superb plan. In Western European Group E1 are the most fanatic supporters of NWO's plan.
Those Groups that support AntiNWO's magnificent plan, can form Subcoalitions or Coalitions and forget about the rest. They could dumb the rest in one or more Pseudo-Coalitions to get rid of them or just let them do what ever they want and ignore them. Western European Group could be dumbed in a Pseudo-Coalition with other Groups that support NWO's highly defective plan from the Dark Ages that has failed tremendously.
POSITION on FREE TRADE is another reasoning. Free trade is a big NWO hoax and a major global problem. Free trade is very harmful for countries with lower competitiveness. Two factors determine competitiveness, productivity and price level. Free trade supporters try to impose free trade on those that do not want it. The opinion regarding FREE TRADE could be a way to form Subcoalitions and Coalitions.
AntiNWO warns Groups, Subcoalitions and Coalitions to be extremely cautious regarding free trade. But if they are foolish enough to want free trade, they can have it. Countries with lower competitiveness will certainly REGRET it DEEPLY because FREE TRADE can be CATASTROPHIC. Free trade is not a win - win situation but a win - lose. Some countries benefit while others are harmed, in some cases a lot.
In a previous article, it was explained that Western European Group E1, southern American A3 (Mercosur +) and India can form a Coalition that is within the ±2 range. They can have ALL the FREE TRADE they WANT in that Coalition and leave others to have a more PRUDENT economic policy WITHOUT FREE TRADE. Likewise, any other Groups that want free trade can be in the same Subcoalition or Coalition.
There can be a COMBINATION of REASONINGS. There are more reasonings that can be followed. For instance, USA is in North American Group A1. Countries in Central American Group A2 are very close spatially to USA, like Mexico and Cuba. Most Latino (legal) immigrants originate from A2. Central American Group does not have countries from Central America only. It is in between the northern American Group A1 and the southern A3.
USA may want to have A2 in the same Subcoalition or Coalition with A1, even if the southern American Group A3 is in a different one. That (A3) could be in the same Coalition with Western European and India and have all the free trade they want. Also relations among countries may determine formation of Subcoalitions and Coalitions. North American A1 may want to be in the same Subcoalition or Coalition with R4 that will have Australia, New Zealand and the rest of Oceanian countries.
AntiNWO provides a GROUPING that works well in FORMING SUBCOALITIONS and COALITIONS. Decision makers can add any two Groups to China's and India's Coalition. Also any three Groups can form a Subcoalition. Two Subcoalitions make a Coalition. Most of the cases will be in the ±2 range for Coalitions and ±1 for Subcoalitions. Some will be outside that range.
But decision makers could change the range to ±3 for Coalitions and ±1,5 for Subcoalitions. They are the decision makers and they can do whatever they want. All AntiNWO's supporters can participate in decision making. Only NWO's supporters are excluded but they can participate indirectly. The larger the range, the more combinations will be within the range. But the smaller the range, the more even in terms of population Subcoalitions and Coalitions will be.
If decision makers accept the grouping provided by AntiNWO, they can forget about one problem (grouping) and focus on formation of Subcoalitions and Coalitions by following one or more reasonings. Nevertheless, if they want, they can try different groupings, with the assistance of experts in data analysis. They will realize that not all groupings work well in forming Subcoalitions and Coalitions.