Less probable arrangements
Less probable arrangements
In the previous article, we explained that 88,2% (in terms of population) of the countries/areas have almost certain placement in a specific Coalition. We can't claim that it is 100% certain because a final decision has not been made yet. This is not the only arrangement proposed. There are all sorts of opinions regarding the arrangement of countries/areas in four Coalitions. Most of them have serious shortcomings.
To some people in many countries, the arrangement of Appendix 48 may not seem that great. It is NOT PERFECT but all the REST are WORSE. We can't examine all the different proposals because they are two many. We will examine a few of them and explain why these are improbable or less probable. However, improbable means that the chances are small, not zero. So it is not 100% that these will not happen.
Russia, Iran, China have good relations. Some people also include India but this is questionable. India is more in between these countries and Western Europe or North America. Some people propose to have Russia, Iran, China and perhaps India in the same Coalition. First of all, China and India can't be in the same Coalition because together they have more than 35% of the world's population.
These people have NOT done the MATH. When they do the math, they will change their opinion. They do not need to do the calculations themselves. They can have others do them. Only very few countries can fit in such a Coaltion. This is shown on the left side of Table A in Appendix 49. The fifteen countries have already 26,1%. The rest will not allow them to have much more than that.
What the supporters of such a Coalition do not understand is that they are GIVING AWAY the REST of the WORLD to North America (USA) and Western Europe. The arey offering three quarters of the world (in terms of population) to the other "side". AntiNWO does not view the world as two sides but people with Cold War mentality have the tendency to do that.
Eastern Europe, including Ukraine and Moldova will be with North America or Western Europe. Most likely, Eastern Europe will be with North America because Eastern European AntiNWO rejects being in the same Coalition with Western Europe, without Russia. Arab countries, including Iran's allies (Yemen, Lebanon) will be with North America or Western Europe.
The Coalitions are not three but four. So there will be one more Coalition, with India. North America (USA) and Western Europe will get the countries/areas that they want and will leave the rest for India. The Coalition on the left side of Table A (Appendix 49) is the greatest gift Russia, Iran, China can give to North America and Western Europe. If they are fools, they will choose that Coalition.
The supporters of such Coalition do not have balanced thinking but one sided. As in all things, there are pros and cons. Undoubtedly, China, Russia and Iran have good relations. If this is seen from one side only, it will be something good to have them in the same Coalition. But there is another side which they fail to see. They give as a gift the rest of the world to North America and Western Europe.
North America and Western Europe were allies during Cold War. In the post Cold War era, they are economic competitors. These are the most advanced areas of the world. They should be in different Coalitions and assist less advanced areas in developing. Since they are economic competitors and the two most advanced areas, they should be in different Coalitions.
Some people in North America and Western Europe may say that they do not care about assisting less advanced areas of the world. Having no plan is handling the victory to NWO's stupid plan. There is another important reason why North America and Western Europe should not be in the Coalition. It was just explained above for China, Russia, Iran. The reasoning is the exactly the same.
If North America and Western Europe are in the same Coalition, it will not be full. Some more areas could be added. Still, three quarters of the world will be given as a gift to China, Russia, Iran etc. We will examine such a case. On the right side of Table A in Appendix 49 is a Coalition with only India and ASEAN. The percentage is 26,4% which could be acceptable. One option is to have China with the countries shown on the left side of Table A.
Another is to have China with the rest of the countries in Eastern Asia. This is presented in Table B of Appendix 49. The percentage is 24%. What about the rest of the countries in Asia (and Oceania), the western part that is not included in any of the two Coalitions? This is shown in Table A of Appendix 49B. At least North Africa and Eastern Europe would have to be added. Still, the percentage would be only 16,1%.
If we also add the Subsaharan area that was included in Coalition D in previous articles, the percentage becomes 21,7%. More need to be added. There are two options shown in Table B of Appendix 49B. If we add Western Europe (option 1), the percentage will be 26%. North America's Coalition will have only 23,6%. So it could get 0,5 - 1% in Africa to bring the percentage higher. It may be awkward though to have Western Europe, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia in the same Coaliton.
It will not work out well. Also North America (USA) may not accept it. Another option is to add around 250 million in Subsahran Africa (option 2) and bring the percentage to around 25 (24,8) %. Western Europe will be with all the American continent and a large part of Subsahara. This is not an improbable arrangement but one that seems less probable than the one suggested in Appendix 48 because it has more important shortcomings.
Three quarters of the world are in other Coaltions. North America and Western Europe are the most advanced areas of the world. They can't benefit each other much but they could benefit less advanced areas. They are also economic competitors. Western Europe wants to be independent from North America. Among the less probable options, this one seems to have more chances but it is not as good as the suggested one.
Many people make a very SERIOUS MISTAKE. They EVALUATE the suggested ARRANGEMENT alone. There is no question that it is NOT PERFECT. It does have SHORTCOMINGS. But the OTHER arrangements have MORE IMPORTANT SHORTCOMINGS. So it should not be evaluated alone but in COMPARISON with other arrangements. It is not perfect but as GOOD as it can GET. It is BETTER than the REST.