Reasonings for Coalitions 3
Reasonings for Coalitions 3
The American continent is unique because it does not have other continents close by. It is not the same with Europe, Asia and Africa. Europe and Asia are not real continents but conventional. The continent is Eurasia. Also Africa was connected with Asia, before the Suez Canal was made. Most of Egypt is in Africa but a part is in Asia as well, the Sinai peninsula.
In the case of the American continent, there can't be countries from other continents in the American Groups. But there can be Groups from other continents in a Subcoalition or Coalition. The first Muslim Group M1 (Table A in Appendix 27), has mostly African Arab countries but three Asian Arab as well. The Northern and Eastern European Group E2 (Table A - Appendix 26) has three Asian countries, Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia.
If the reasoning of geographic or spatial proximity is followed, there will be an American Subcoalition A1-A2-A3. Two Subcoalitions make a Coalition. The other Subcoalition will be an ocean apart. But the ocean can be Pacific as well, not only Atlantic. The second Subcoalition can be across the Atlantic or the Pacific ocean. In geographic or spatial proximity, the two European Groups E1 and E2 do not necessarily have to be together.
There are more cases of geographic or spatial proximity. One of them is A1-A2-A3, E1-M1-S1, E2 -M2-M3, S2-S3-S4. A1-A2-A3 can be in the same Coalition with E1-M1-S1 or S2-S3-S4. E2-M2-M3 can be be with E1-M1-S1 or S2-S3-S4. But the American Subcoalition A1-A2-A3 can be together with a Subcoalition across the Pacific Ocean, instead of the Atlantic. This is in A1-A2-A3, R2-R3-R4, I-M3-M2, C-R1-E1, E1-M1-S1, S2-S3-S4.
M1 has all the Arab countries that are in the Mediterranean. Most of them are in North Africa. Three Asian Arab countries (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon) are also included to bring the populations of the three Muslims Groups (Table A - Appendix 27) more even. Jordan is close to the the Mediterranean but has no coastline on it. E1-E2-M1 Subcoalition has almost all the Mediterranean countries. So it can be viewed as a Mediterranean plus Northern European Subcoalition.
Northern and Eastern European Group E2 is next to six Groups E1, M1, M2, M3, C, R1. According to the economic proximity reasoning, A1-E1-E2-R1 must be in the same Coalition. E1-E2-R1 Subcoalition has economic and geographic proximity because E2 is next to R1 (Japan, South Korea etc). If we have a Coalition with two Subcoalitions A1-A1-A3 and E1-E2-R1, there is geographic proximity and also A1-E1-E2-R1 are in the same Coalition.
If we want strict economic proximity, we should find the Groups that are in fifth and sixth place in terms of per capita income. Our guess is that R4 (Australia, New Zealand etc) and M2 (Saudi Arabia, Turkiye etc) may be those but we have not done the calculations. If the Groups A1-E1-E2-R1-R4-M2 are in a Coalition, there can be spatial proximity only in one Subcoalition E1-E2-R1, E1-E2-M2, E2-M2-R1.
There are arguments in favor and against something like that happening. A Coalition with the richest Groups would be too powerful, compared to the rest. Some people believe that it is more beneficial if Groups that are economically advanced cooperate with Groups that are less advanced than cooperation among Groups that are at similar level of economic advancement. This is economic mix reasoning.
At this point, we should differentiate three concepts that are closely related but not the same, economic development, technological development and per capita income. Usually these three go together. In other worlds, countries that are economically developed are also technologically developed and have high per capita income. But this is not always the case.
China is very developed technoligically but in terms of per capita income, it is at the world's average, below countries that are less developed technologically. Also relatively high per capita income may be attributed to abudance of natural resources, like oil and natural gas. There are oil or gas producing countries that have relatively high per capita income but are not technologically or economically advanced.
As it has been explained, there can be a Coalition of fools, with FREE TRADE, India - Western European Group - Mercosur+ (I-E1-A3). Perhaps, there can be another Coalition of fools, with free trade. If those fools want, they can have all the free trade they want, unlimited free trade, between the two Coalitions. The world will be divided into two parts, foolish part and prudent part.
SPATIAL PROXIMITY and SPATIAL MIX can be COMBINED. Two or more Groups can have spatial proximity but they can be in a Coalition with Groups from different parts of the world. Two of the Coalitions will have six Groups. Six can be divided by two and three. In a Coalition, there can be three clusters with two Groups each that are next to each other. The three clusters will be in different parts of the world.
An example is E1-E2, S2-S4 and R1-R2. In that case, the Subcoalitions will be three and each one will have around one third of the population. If the cluster has three Groups, it will be a Subcoalition like those we have examined so far, with three Groups each. In China's and India's Coalitions, they can be together with a cluster that is in a different part of the world, for insance C with S1-S2.
Existing Groups can be used to form the ones proposed. Southern American Group A3 is Mercosur plus Bolivia, Chile, Peru. There are four Groups in Subsaharan Africa, CEMAC, ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC. S1, S2, S3, S4 can be based on them. ASEAN can be divided into two Groups and form a Subcoalition with one more Group. Some modifications may be necessary to bring the populations of the S and R Groups more even.
Regardless of all these, we must repeat and emphasize that AVAILABILITY REASONING is PRACTICAL and FEASIBLE. It may be the only one that may be used, at least initially. All the analysis presented regarding the various reasonings that can be followed to form Subcoalitions and Coalitions is CORRECT and VERY IMPORTANT. Probably, other reasonings will lead to a much BETTER ARRANGEMENT of Groups, compared to the availability reasoning.
Suppose that NWO's supporters insist with manic obsession on a higlhy defective plan from the Dark Ages that has failed enormously. This is very likely. In practical terms, what can AntiNWO's supporters do about that? They can FORM SUBCOALITIONS and COALIITONS among them and forget about the rest, as described in "be the best and f.... the rest". They can DUMB NWO's SUPPORTERS in one or two PSEUDOCOALITIONS or leave them to do whatever they want.
However, in addition to the AVAILABILITY REASONING, there can be other reasonings used. The availability reasoning will "separate the wheat from the chaff". One or more reasonings can be applied only on wheat, excluding chaff. Even if the availability reasoning is used first, all the analysis presented in the three articles will not be useless. It can be applied on what is left after the chaff is thrown away.