Reconsider Plan A

In another article, we will make AntiNWO's plan simpler. In this article, we will reconsider the grouping of Plan A which has NOT been ABANDONED. Due to the Bunny Effect, PLANS B or B2 have MORE CHANCES than PLAN A. After Bunny's performance in USA's Super Bowl, American (USA) people do not want any Latin countries in their Group anymore.

But the grouping is not solely USA's decision. Also, people in USA may change their mind regarding this issue. Obviously, that Bunny would have to apologize publicly and admit that what he did was not only totally inappropriate but a horrible thing to do. If his performance was in a Latino event, it would not be a problem. But Super Bowl is a national and the most watched event. They should make that Bunny apologize.

AntiNWO has two Grouping proposals. We will call them Grouping A and Grouping B. Grouping B is presented in Appendix 31, which is based in Talbes A of Appendices 26, 27, 28. There are 16+2=18 Groups; A1, A2, A3, E1, E2, M1, M2, M3, SI, S2, S3, S4, R1, R2, R3, R4, C, I. Grouping A has 10+2=12 Groups; So far, we have used numbers 1-12 for the Groups. Now, we will use similar names with Grouping B.

The Groups are; 1) North America A1 2) South & Central America A2 3) Western Europe E1 4) Eastern Europe & ACA E2 5) Arab Group M1 6) Northern Subsaharan Africa S1 7) Southern Subsaharan Africa S2 8) Southwestern Asia M2 9) Northeastern Asia R1 10) Southeastern Asia & Oceania R2 11) India I 12) China C. ACA is Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan).

Instead of North-South, there can be East-West division in Eastern Asia and Subsaharan Africa. In Eastern Asia, we will use East-West division. R1 will include Japan, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. It will be similar with the one presented in Table C of Appendix 33 but with more countries. This fits better the ASEAN - non ASEAN division. In Subsaharan Africa, it can be either way (East-West or North-South division).

The four Coalitions will be; 1) China + 1 Group 2) India + 1 Group 3) 4 Groups, 4) 4 Groups. All the Groups are A1, A2, E1, E2, M1, M2, S1, S2, R1, R2, C, I. All that has been explained in recent articles regarding Plan B2 can be applied in Plan A. Incomplete Coalitions, Free Formation, availability and steps, DMPR, RLS etc can be used in Grouping A as well.

Suppose that decision makers can't agree on a way of arranging Groups in Coalitions. Like with the 16+2=18 Groups, DMPR or RLS are fair ways to resolve the issue. The leaders of decision making are the same like with Grouping B, A1, E2, C, I. India can only be a leader if it cancels the deal with EU. After that, it can be in they same Coalition with Western European Group E1. We will examine both cases, with and without India as a leader.

Some people wonder why India should be a leader. Currently the five largest economies in ppp (purchasing power parity) are China, USA, India, Russia, Japan. In the future, INDIA will SURPASS USA and will become the SECOND LARGEST ECONOMY because it has more than four times larger population compared to USA's. In the future, the world's TWO LARGEST economies will be CHINA's and INDIA's because these two countries have enormous population.

Western Europe can't be a leader because it is the main supporter of NWO's plan and the main opponent of AntiNWO's plan. It is obvious that Western Europeans can't be leaders in a plan that they strongly oppose. If NWO's psychopaths in Western Europe are replaced with others that are not psychopaths and support AntiNWO's magnificent plan, Western Europe could be among the leaders.

At the top of Appendix 35 are the 10+2=12 Groups to be arranged in Coalitions. Right below is the ranking of the four leaders. In the first round M2, E1, A2, R1 will go to C, I, A1, E2 respectively. China's and India's Coalitions are complete, C-M2 and I-E1. Both A1 and E2 have E1 in the second place. But E1 has already been assigned to India in the first round.

Next available for A1 is M1. For E2 it is R2. The two remaining Coalitions will be A1-A2-M1 and E2-R1-R2. There is only one Group missing in each Coalition. In the fourth round, A1 will get S2. So E2 will get the only remaining Group S1. The result is; C-M2, I-E1, A1-A2-M1-S2, E2-R1-R2-S1. It is also shown in the table below the ranking in Appendix 35. The example was intentionally easy.

The purpose of this article is not to examine in detail DMPR and RLS methods. This was done in many previous articles. Suppose that India does not cancel the trade deal with EU. Not only India won't be a leader but it won't even participate in decision making. In that case, it can be placed in a Pseudo-Coalition with another Group. Most likely that Group will be Western European E1.

Decision makers should do something similar with the alternatives (Alt 1-8) of Appendix 34. They should try different arrangements of the Groups in Coalitions. Indicatively, four cases are shown, Alt 1-4 in Appendix 35. There are three thousand one hundred and fourty six (3.146) more alternatives. Decision makers may be able to agree on one of the many alternatives. In that case, DMPR or RLS will not be needed.

Free Formation can also be followed. With Grouping A, it is easier to have complete Coalitions. Suppose that India and Western European Group E1 form Coalition I-E1. That would be a complete Coalition. Also China and M2 (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkiye) could form a complete Coalition, C-M2. So there will be two complete Coalitions and two more will need to be completed. Let's assume that A1-A2 and E1-R1 form two Incomplete Coalitions.

In each one of these incomplete Coalitions, two more Groups will be needed to make them complete. It can be Free Formation all the way, agreement or DMPR/RLS. If Free Formation is followed all the way, A1-A2 and E1-R1 will wait for two more Groups to be added in each. Or they can make an agreement regarding the Groups that should be in each Coalition. If none of these works, they could follow DMPR or RLS which are fair ways to resolve this isssue.

We have not covered all the topics. Almost everything that was mentioned in the many articles regarding Plan B/B2 can be applied to Grouping A. In another article, we will simplify AntiNWO's magnificent plan. Having Plan A, Plan B, Plan B2 is too complicated and makes some people confused. In reality, there is ONE PLAN, with TWO proposed GROUPINGS, A and B.