More on incomplete Coalitions 2
More on incomplete Coalitions 2
Appendix 34 presents what decision makers should do. At the top of the table are the 16+2=18 Groups that will be arranged in four Coalitions. There are millions of ways to do that. Decision makers should try different ways of arranging the eighteen (18) Groups in four (4) Coalitions. Indicatively, eight alternatives are shown. In the previous article, there were six Groups left, M1, M2, S1, S2, S3, S4.
In Alt 1 and Alt 2 these are divided into two Subcoalitions, M1-S1-S2 and M2-S3-S4. In Alt 1, M1-S1-S2 is placed with E2-R1-E1 and M2-S3-S4 with A1-A2-A3. In Alt 2, M1-S1-S2 is with A1-A2-A3 and M2-S3-S4 with E2-R1-E1. M1, M2, S1, S2, S3, S4 could form one Coalition (Alt 3). That would be African Union according to NWO's insane plan plus some Asian countries. So it will be African Union+.
Nevertheless, many people are against the Alt 3. One Coalition would be A1-A2-A3 and E1-E2-R1. That would be too powerful compared to the rest. AntiNWO has promised PEACE and PROSPERITY all around the world. There will be rapid development in less economically advanced areas. Suppose that A1-A2-A3 is with M2-S3-S4 and E1-E2-R1 with M1-S1-S2 (Alt 1). It can be the other way around, A1-A2-A3 with M1-S1-S2 and E1-E2-R1 with M2-S3-S4 (Alt 2).
As an example we will take Alt 1 but Alt 2 is very similar. A1 is by far the Group with the highest per capita income. It can assist the development of A2 and A3. In M2, there are countries with relatively high per capita income, compared to world's average. M2 could be the "leaders" in M2-S3-S4 Subcoalition. Eventhough M1 does not have as high per capita income as M2, it is higher than S1 and S2. M1 can be the "leaders" in M1-S1-S2 Subcoalition.
The second Group in terms of per capita income is Western European E1. The other two in E1-E2-R1 Subcoalition follow in third and fourth place. They could assist M1 in its economic development which in turn will asssit S1 and S2. Likewise, A1 can assist M2 in futher economic development. In that way, development can spread to less developed areas of the world.
In Alt 1, Alt 2 and Alt 3, there is substantial geographic (spatial) proximity. This is NOT a REQURIMENT but a PREFERENCE of some people, NOT ALL. SPATIAL PROXIMITY is REQUIRED only in GROUPS because only in GROUPS there will be CLOSE COOPERATION. In Alt 1, Alt 2 and Alt 3, all three American Groups are in one Subcoalition, A1-A2-A3. There are many people that support the opposite, PLACING the THREE AMERICAN GROUPS in THREE DIFFERENT COALITIONS.
According to this oppinion, the same should happen with E, M, S and R Groups. A, E, M, S, R Groups should be spread to different Coalitions to the extent possible and have as many parts of the world in one Coalition as possible. That arrangement could start with China's and India's Coalitions because there would be only two more Groups in these. Since India and China are in Eastern Asia, the effort should be not to have R (Rest of Asia and Oceania) Groups in their Coalitions. There are many alterntives.
The fourth alternative (Alt 4) is C-M3-S2, I-E1-A3, A1- R2-R4-M2-S1-S3, E2-R1-R3-M1-A2-S4. There is a better mix from different parts of the world, compared to Alt1, Alt2 and Alt3. Alt 5 is similar with Alt 4 but not the same. Some people believe that the arrangement in Alt 4 and Alt 5 is better than the three first (Alt1, Alt2, Alt3). Having INCOMPLETE COALITIONS as POLES does not REQUIRE SPATIAL PROXIMITY between the Groups.
There can still be incomplete Coalitions in Alt 4 and Alt 5. C-M3 can be one and I-E1 a second. They will need just one more Group to add so that the two Coalitions would be complete. E2-R1 could be a third incomplete Coalition and A1 with another Group the fourth. They would need to add four more Groups in each Coalition to make it complete. Free formation, agreement or DMPR - RLS methods can be used to complete the Coalitions.
Alternatively, AVAILABILITY reasoning is a practical and feasible way. Instead of trying to gather the rest of the Groups, the AVAILABLE GROUPS could form COALITIONS AMONG them. They can place the rest of the Groups in Pseudocoalitions or leave them to form their own Coalitions in the future. Free trade reasoning also makes sense. Groups that want free trade should be in the same Coalition.
We have presented several alternatives, (general) agreement, free formation, DMPR or RLS, only two Groups Subcoalitions, a mix of three-Groups and two-Groups Subcoalitions, incomplete Coalitions etc. Whatever works out best is the preferable way. We can't know which one is that. So we have shown many different ways and decision makers have a large array to choose from. We should add a couple of more points.
In the previous article we suggested that Iran should forget about M2 countries because not only they are not supportive but slightly against Iran by allowing USA to use bases in their territory against Iran. Turkiye is in M2 and calls for stopping the war. We should remind that Turkiye was a major opponent of AntiNWO's plan A. In that plan, Turkiye was in Group 8 with M3 countries, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
Turkiye did not want to be together with Iran. So Iran should forget about Turkiye as well. Iran should seek support elsewhere, not from Muslim countries in M2. The grouping in Plan A was good and all Muslim countries should have supported it. We should emphasize that PLAN A has not been ABANDONED. It is still a possibility. We will explain that in another article.
In the previous article we explained that people in Groups E2 and R1 should not be afraid that Group E1 will control them because the three Groups will be distinct, separate and independent. Nevertheless, being involved indirectly is someting different than control. Germany and Western Europe could be indirectly involved through Scandinavian countries, Finland and Austria.
It is possible that there will be Austria-Slovakia swap between the Regions B1a and B1b shown in Table A of Appendix 29. Germany and Western Europe could be indirectly involved through Austria in southern Region B1b and though Scandinavia and Finland in Northern Region B1a. These will be expained in another article. Western European Group E1 could be indirectly involved in Group R1 through Australia and New Zealand.