AntiNWO's two Groupings

Appendices 36 and 37 present AntiNWO's Grouping A. In Appendix 37 are almost all Groups, except the two Subsaharan (S). Appendix 36 has ten examples of arranging the Groups in Coalitions. There are three thousand one hundred and forty (3.140) more. Most Coalitions are within 25±2% range. Two are within 25±2,5% range and one within 25±3%.

AntiNWO's Grouping B is spread in many Appendices. We should gather Grouping B in two Appendixes, in a manner similar to Grouping A. AntiNWO's two Groupings, A and B, will be in four consecutive Appendixes. Appendix 39 has most of the 16+2=18 Groups in detail. Table A has the three American (A1, A2, A3) and the two European Groups (E1, E2).

These were shown in Table A of Appendix 26 (European) and Table A of Appendix 28 or Appendix 30 (American). As matters have evolved, Israel may be US territory. Alternatively, it could be in USA's Coalition, without being in any Group. So Israel's population is added to USA's Group. It won't make much difference if Israel is placed elsewhere because its population is small.

Table B of Appendix 39 has the three Muslim (M1, M2, M3) and the four Rest of Asia and Oceania (R1, R2, R2, R4) Groups. Muslim Groups were shown in Table A of Appendix 27. Rest of Asia and Oceania was shown in Table C of Appendix 33. In that table, only R1 was formed. In Table B of Appendix 39, we show a possible option for the R Groups. In R5 are three countries that may be together with China.

As in Appendix 37, we do not present the Subsaharan (S1, S2, S3, S4) Groups in Appendix 39. They could be based on the four existing Groups, CEMAC, ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC. Anyone interested can give it a try. We have made a rough estimate of Subsaharan population, 1,15 billion. For the four S Groups, we use the average. We divide 1,15 billion by four which is 288 million.

In column 1 of Table A in Appendix 38, the Groups are shown. In column 2 is the population and in column 3 the percentage of the world's total. A1+ (A1 plus Israel) includes Israel's population and C+ (China plus R5) includes R5 population. The population is in millions in order to make it easier. In column 4 of Table A, six possible arrangement of Groups in Coalitions are presented.

In Table B, four more combinations are presented, so that the total is ten, like in Appendix 36 for Grouping A. There are millions more. Eight or these alternatives were shown in Appendix 34 (Alt 1-8). In Appendix 38 we calculate their population and the percentage of the world's total. As it can be seen, most of the Coalitions are within the 25±2% range. C-M3-M2 (27,03%) is only slightly above and M1-M2-S1-S2-S3-S4 (22,72%) is within 25±2,5% range.

AntiNWO's TWO GROUPINGS have been SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to WORK WELL on FORMING COALITIONS. In MOST COMBINATIONS, the FOUR COALITIONS will be within 25±2% RANGE. And if a few Coalitions are not within that range, they will be within 25±2,5% or 25±3% range. DECISION MAKERS do NOT have to WORRY if the COALITIONS will be WITHIN an ACCEPTABLE RANGE.

ALL DECISION MAKERS NEED to DO is ARRANGE the Groups in COALITIONS. In Grouping A, the arrangement should be 1) China + 1 Group 2) India + 1 Group 3) 4 Groups 4) 4 Groups. In Grouping B, the arrangement should be 1) China + 2 Groups 2) India + Groups 3) 6 Groups 4) 6 Groups. Any combination should be within the acceptable range. In most cases that would be 25±2%.

Decision makers could try some other Groupings, with the assistance of data analysts. However, these GROUPINGS may not work well on forming Coalitions. If decision makers try other Groupings, they need to make sure that these groupings work well on forming Coaltions. AntiNWO has done the work for them and has designed two Groupings that work very well on forming Coalitions.

AntiNWO strongly believes that these two Groupings are the best on forming Coalitions. Nevertheless, decision makers could give it a try. Most likley, they would verify that these two Groupings are the best. It is very important to have a Grouping that works well on forming Coalitions. Because the DECISION regarding the ARRANGEMENT of GROUPS in COALITIONS does not have to be taken SOON.

As a matter of fact, it may PREFERABLE if the DECISION regarding COALITIONS delays an adequate time. What has to be done ASAP is to DECIDE about a GROUPING and FORM the GROUPS. Groups can be arranged in Coalitions based on the RELATIONS that will DEVELOP between them. The Groups that have CLOSER RELATIONS can be in a Coalition. Those that have even CLOSER RELATIONS can be in a SUBCOALITION. Subcoalitions are optional.

AntiNWO has provided two Groupings that work very well on forming Coaltions. Decision makers can give it a try but most likely they will not find any other Grouping that works better on forming Coalitions than these two. Decision makers should CHOOSE ONE of the TWO GROUPINGS ASAP. They are both very good. After the Grouping has been decided, Groups should be formed. 

STEP ONE is to CHOOSE the GROUPING. STEP TWO is to FORM the GROUPS. STEP THREE is to DEVELOP RELATIONS between the GROUPS. STEP FOUR is to DECIDE about COALITIONS and SUBCOALITIONS based on the Group's relations. That could be done after many years, one or even two decades. DECIDING about the GROUPING and FORMING the GROUPS has to be DONE ASAP.

We have gathered AntiNWO's two Groupings, A and B, in 2+2 Appendixes. Appendix 37 shows the Groups in Grouping A while Appendix 39 presents the Groups in Grouping B. In Appendix 36, we present ten possible arrangements of Groups in Coalitions with Grouping A and prove that they are within an acceptable range. In Appendix 38, we do the same with Grouping B. There are endless other alternatives than the ones presented. 

Decision makers and anyone interested should compare the two Groupings and choose one of them. This needs to be done ASAP. Consequently, the Groups must be formed. The decision regarding the Coalition can be left to others in the future. This decision should be taken according to the Group relations that have evolved. It may be better to allow enough time for the relations to develop.

We should emphasize that the PROBABILITY of NWO's GROUPING is LESS THAN ZERO*. This is really obvious to anyone by considering the percenages of NWO's four Unions; a) European 7,5%, b) American 12,5% c) African 17,5% d) Asian 62,5%. The range is 37,5% while in AntiNWO's two Groupings it is 2% in most cases and 2,5% or 3% in very few. SUPPORTING SOMETHING that has LESS THAN ZERO CHANCES is the DEFINITION of STUPIDITY.

*This is an exaggeration. Probabilities are not negative.