Basis for exchanges
Basis for exchanges
The arrangement of countries / areas in four Coalitions presented in "A good Arrangement" and in Appendix 44 is probably as GOOD as it can GET. There does not seem any need to make any changes. The only possible change would be to include British Isles (UK, Ireland) in Coalition C with North America. However, the arrangement can serve as the BASIS for NEGOTIATIONS regarding EXCHANGES between Coalitions.
We will present ONLY a FEW of the POSSIBLE EXCHANGES. The areas or countries exchanged should have roughly the same population. In Appendix 45, we repeat the arrangement shown in Appendix 44 in a slightly different way to make the exchanges easier understood. The AREAS should NOT be CONFUSED with the DIVISIONS proposed in "A good arrangement". British Isles (C2) are in Coalition C.
There can be exchanges of countries. Turkey could be exchanged for D4 (Azerbaijan - Central Asia). B's percentage increases to 26,42% while D's decreases to 24,37%. So some ACA countries could remain in D. For instance, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan could be in D while the rest in B. In that case, the percentages of B and D become 26,04% and 24,76% respectively. However, there seems no reason for such an exchange.
One possible exchange of areas is between C and D, C3 (Mercosur+) for D10 (Subsaharan). These two areas have roughly the same population. Again, there is no reason to do such an exchange. Mercosur+ is better placed with the rest of the American continent. Also C2 (central American area) has roughly the same population with D10 (Subsaharan). Once more, although it is possible, there is no reason for such an exchange.
AS ALWAYS, the PROBLEM is WESTERN EUROPE. For a thousand years, they have been trying to conquer or control Eastern Europe. They are obsessed with Eastern Europe because according to their very stupid plan, Eastern Europe (except Russia) would be with Western in European Union. Finally, Western European NWO has abandoned that highly defective plan from the Dark Ages.
But they won't let Eastern Europe go. Is it possible for Western Europe to be in the same Coalition with Eastern? Theoretically, this can happen but ONLY if RUSSIA is INCLUDED. Eastern Europe will decide it, not Western. Eastern Europe is among the leaders of AntiNWO's plan, with North America (USA) and China. Western Europe does not participate in decision making because it is the main opponent of AntiNWO's plan.
If Eastern Europe wants, it can include Western Europe in its Coalition. Western Europe (A1+A2), without the British Isles, has roughly the same population with D10 (Subsaharan). A1 and A2 could be exchanged for D10. In Coalition A, there will be India, A3 and D10. In that case another exchange should be necessary, Eastern Pacific (D5 and D6) for A3.
This is because Coalition A would not have any advanced areas. If these two exchanges are made, India's Coalition A will have 24,92% of the world's population and Eastern Europe's D 24,61%. However this would NOT be a GOOD ARRANGEMENT for several reasons. Although Eastern Europe is less advanced than Western, compared to the rest of the world, it is considered an advanced area.
Eastern Europe does not need any assistance in advancement. Association with Western has been extremely harmful. Western and Eastern Europe should be in different Coalitions and assist less advanced areas. Eastern European AntiNWO has deep and strong hate for Western European NWO. It will avoid by all means to be in the same Coalition with Western Europe. Generally, most areas in D feel the same way for Western Europe.
They consider Western European NWO a cabal of psychopaths and they are certain that the psychopaths will try to control the Coalition and impose their will. Also it is possible that the other two leaders, North America (USA) and China, will oppose having Western and Eastern Europe in the same Coalition. They have less advanced areas in their Coalitions.
The same should be done with Western Europe. It should be in a Coalition with less advanced areas, not Eastern Europe which is advanced. What they should try to do is change the composition of their Coalition, if the suggested is not satisfactory. They got what they asked for. They asked for India and they got India. They also asked for Mercosur+. There could be an exchange between Coalitions C and A, C3 for A3.
However, there are population differences. The percentage of C will decrease to 22,8% while that of A will increase to 26,35%. So A will have to give Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) and Finland to C. Alternatively, D can get SFA (Scandinavia, Finland, Austria) from A while C gets D6 (Australia, New Zealand, Papua) from D. That would be a TRIANGULAR EXCHANGE. In that case, the percentages will be, A 25,9%, C 23,33% and D 24,38%.
Another option for Western Europe is to exchange with North America, A3 for an area in Subsaharan Africa. We should mention another possible exchange, eventhough it is very unlikely that it can happen. A3 has the same population with North Africa (D9) which is close to Western Europe. This will separate North Africa from the rest of the Arab countries in Arab Peninsula. The chances of that happening are small.
Western Europe could try to place India in another Coalition. India can't be in the same Coaltion with China because the two countries together have more than 35%. The best bet for Western Europe would be North America's (USA's) Coalition C. In USA, a large percentage of the population wants their government to focus more on domestic affairs and less on international.
North America will keep only C1, the central American area C4 plus India (26,61%). British Isles (C2), Mercosur (C3) and Subsaharan area will be in Western Europe's Coalition A (22,53%). It is less likely but not impossible, Western Europe to persuade Eastern Europe to take India. In that case Eastern Europe will keep D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 plus India (25,46%). The rest (D6-D10) plus A3 will be in Western Europe's Coalition A (24,07%).
As it was explained in previous article, WESTERN EUROPE will have to give rewards to decision makers, in order to make them consider seriously and grant some or all of their preferences. Most likely the reward will be a VERY LARGE AMOUNT of MONEY. This would have to be given in MONTHLY or ANNUAL PAYMENTS for a long period of time, up to fifty years. It should be measured as percentage of Western Europe's GDP.
The arrangement in Appendix 45 seems as good as it can get. As always, Western Europe is the problem. It will not participate in decision making because it is the main opponent of AntiNWO's spectacular plan. For the right amount of money, Western Europe could convince decision makers to make some or all of the modifications they want. The question is what percentage of GDP they will ask, for how many years and if Western Europe is willing to give it.