Two Groups Subcoalitions

In previous articles, most of the Subcoalitions we examined had three Groups. It was only mentioned briefly that Subcoalitions can have two Groups as well. In "Availability and steps", there were two paragraphs regarding two-Groups Coalitions. This is an important topic that requires to be examined in a few articles, instead of only in two paragrhaphs. Overall, two-Groups Subcoalitions are better than three-Groups.

Two-Groups Subcoalitions work well in some cases but not in all. They work well in China's and India's Coalitions, in the rest of Asia and Oceania, in Subsaharan Africa. They do not work well in American continent and with the Muslim Groups of North Africa, Southwestern and Central Asia. Preferably, there will be GEOGRAPHIC (SPATIAL) PROXIMITY in Subcoalitions but it is NOT NECESSARY.

In China's and India's Coalitions, there will be only two more Groups. This is because these two countries have very large population. Only two more Groups are needed to bring the population to roughly 25%  of the world's. The two Groups that will be added to China's and India's Coalitions can form a Subcoalition. So it will be China plus a two-Groups Subcoalition and India plus a two-Groups Subcoalition.

In the rest of Asia and Oceania, there will be four Groups, R1, R2, R3, R4. Each Group will have roughly three hundred million people. There can be two Subcoalitions with two Groups each. There are three ways these two Subcoalitions can be formed. The alternatives are; 1) R1-R4, R2-R3 2) R1-R2, R3-R4 3) R1-R3, R2-R4. We do not know yet the composition of the Groups.

R1 will have Japan, South Korea and other countries. R4 will have Australia, New Zealand and other countries. These are not in ASEAN. So R2-R3 Subcoalition can be based on ASEAN. It can be roughly ASEAN. Of course, adjustments would be necessary in order to bring the populations of the four Groups roughly equal. R2-R3 can't be ASEAN exactly as it is but ASEAN modified.

The two R (Rest of Asia and Oceania) Subcoalitions could be in China's and India's Coalitions but it is not necessary. They could be in any other Coalition. Also, R Groups can be in a Subcoalition with non-R Groups. For instance, R1 can be in a Subcoalition with Northern and Eastern European Group E2. There is geographical (spatial) and economic proximity. R4 can be in a Subcoalition with South American A3, North American A1 or Western European E1.

Subsaharan Africa has also four Groups, S1, S2, S3, S4. There are three ways to form Subcoalitions 1) S1-S2, S3-S4 2) S1-S3, S2-S4 3) S1-S4, S2-S3. Of course, they could form two-Groups Subcoalitions with non-S (Subsaharan Africa) Groups. For instance, S3 can form a Subcoalition with M2 ( Saudi Arabia, Turkiye etc) and S1 with M1 (Mediterranean Arab countries).

There are three Muslim Groups, M1, M2, M3. If these were four, they could form two two-Groups Subcoalitions. But since they are three, only two can be in the same Subcoalition. The other will be in a Subcoalition with a non M (Muslim) Group. There are three alternatives for the M two-Groups Subcoalition; 1) M1-M2 2) M2-M3 3) M1-M3. In the last one, there is no geographic (spatial) proximity.

M3, M1, M2 respectively will be in a Subcoalition with a non-M Group. If there is geographic proximity, M3 can only be with E2. M2 can be with E2, S3 and perhaps S2. M1 can be placed with E1, E2, S1, S3 and perhaps S2. M2 and M1 may be placed with S2 if they are next to it, when spatial proximity is desirable. This depends on the composition of S2, which we do not know yet.

Next on the map is Europe. One Subcoalition could be the two European Groups, Western E1 and Northern-Eastern E2. There is a problem though. Western Europe is the main supporter of NWO's highly defective plan from the Dark Ages that has failed tremendously. Because of that, Western Europe is the main opponent of AntiNWO's magnificent plan. It is questionable how a E1-E2 Subcoalition will be possible.

Like the three Muslim Groups, there are three Groups in the American continent, North American A1, Central American A2, South American A3. Central American Group A2 does not have only countries in Central America. It has Mexico which is in North America and some countries in South America. South American Group A3 does not have all the countries in South America. It is Mercosur plus Bolivia, Peru, Chile.

If there is a two-Groups Subcoalition, one of the three Groups will be in a Subcoalition with a non-A (American) Group. There are three alternatives; 1) A1-A2 2) A2-A3 3) A1-A3. In the last case, there is no spatial proximity. Unlike with Muslim Groups, there are no other Groups close by. All the rest are an ocean apart. Across the Atlantic, the closest Groups are E1, M1, S1. Across the Pacific, the closest Groups are R1 and R4.

Nevertheless, geographic proximity is not necessary in Subcoalitions. In some Subcoalitions, the two Groups can be next to each other while in other Subcoalitions far apart. If geographic proximity is not required or prefered, there are endless alternatives to form two-Groups Coalitions. Without China and India, the rest of the Groups are sixteen (16), A1, A2, A3, E1, E2, M1, M2, M3, S1, S2, S3, S4, R1, R2, R3, R4.

According to an internet source, there are TWO MILLION TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND and TWENTY FIVE (2.027.025) WAYS to have eight Subcoalitions with two Groups each! If this is done, instead of having 16+2=18 Groups, there will be 8+2=10 entities, eight Subcoalitions plus China and India. There is further aggregation (consolidation) attained with the two-Groups Subcoalitions.

TWO-GROUPS Subcoalitions are BETTER than THREE-GROUPS. Number sixteen is divisible by two but not by three. Two-Groups Subcoalitions can be better used as building blocks of Coalitions than three-Groups Coalitions. Obviously, some Subcoalitions can have three Groups and other two Groups. Suppose that we have four three-Groups Subcoalitions and two two-Groups Subcoalitions (4X3 + 2X2 = 16).

The two-Groups Subcoalitions will fit only in China's and India's Coalition. If we have two three-Groups Subcoalitions and five two-Groups Subcoalitions (2X3 + 5X2 = 16), the two three-Groups Subcoalitions must be in the same Coalition. By having all Subcoalitions with two Groups (8X2=16), there are many more choices. It is much better, if it is done in this way.

Suppose that this is followed. The first step would be to form eight Subcoalitions with two Groups each. But this is not all. Four Coalitions must be formed. There can be an agreement which will probably lead to a better arrangement of Subcoalitions in Coalitions. But also DMPR and RLS methods can be used with Subcoalitions instead of Groups. These will be examined in next articles.