Divisions inside groups

We have mentioned in previous articles, the creation of prefectures, regions or provinces inside the groups. Regardless of how we name them, they are further administrative divisions in the groups. This is optional for groups but in some cases, it may be helpful. We will present in one article, information regarding provinces and add some more.

In some groups, provinces already exist. Central and Southern American Group 2 is almost ready. There are three groups already, MERCOSUR, PARLACEN, Andean Community. All it takes is some type of agreement among these three smaller groups, so that Group 2 will be created. The smaller groups that already exist, can remain as provinces of the larger group.

A similar situation exists in Sub-Saharan Africa where there are four groups, ECOWAS, ICAD, CEMAC, SADC. There will be two groups created 6 and 7. So two of the existing groups could make each new larger group. The existing smaller groups could remain as regions. Of course they are not obligated to retain the older, smaller groups as regions but it makes sense.

As it has been explained, there is no Europe but two distinctive areas in Eurasian continent, Western and Eastern Europe. Inside Western and Eastern Europe, there are also differences but smaller. These differences could be dealt with separate provinces. In Caspian scenario, three provinces could be created, Byzantine, Rus and Turkic.

Byzantine province would be basically Balkan countries. Rus province would be Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Turkic, Turkiye and Caspian countries. Of course the Caspian scenario should be avoided because ISIS-K strongly opposes it. If this scenario is chosen, there would be trouble with ISIS-K which may settle for Anti-NWO's original group composition. In that, Caspian countries are with Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Provinces could be created in the original scenario for Eastern Europe as well. The Caspian scenario and Italy's solution were thought of because certain countries were opposing their participation in Eastern European Group, under the guidance of Germany and France. So, one solution would be if those countries form one province inside the group.

The countries which resist their participation in Eastern European group are Poland, Czech Republic and Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. They could be one province of the group. The other two provinces could stil be Byzantine and Rus. Hungary, Slovakia, Turkiye, Armenia, Georgia, Israel would have to be added to one of the three provinces.

This division is geographical. Another division could be based on whether the countries are members of EU. Thirteen Eastern European countries are in EU and will leave to form Eastern European group with the rest that are not in EU. Eight of them are in Eurozone; Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.

Five countries are not in Eurozone; Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania. When Eastern European countries leave EU, for a short transitional period, matters will remain as they were in EU. Than they will have to switch to a new organizational model and a new economic plan, in cooperation with the rest of the countries that will comprise Group 4.

The countries that are in Eurozone will make Eastern Eurozone with Eastern euro as currency. They will have to be a separate group to deal with common currency matters but they do not have to be a separate province. Creating provinces in geographical terms is more convenient but it is not the only way. Another way is if level of per capita income is taken into consideration. Poorer countries can be grouped together and the same will be done for richer.

It is not certain if provinces will be formed. It is an option, not something that has to be done. If formation of provinces is chosen, there are several criteria that could be used and in each case several ways of dividing Group 4, or any Group, in provinces. Geographical criterion is the most obvious one, which makes more sense but other criteria could be used.

Another issue is how autonomous these provinces would be. This is another matter which Group 4, or any group, will have to decide. Will the provinces have capitals? Assuming that there will be provinces inside a group, there are four possibilities regarding, group and provinces' capitals; a) no capital for group or provinces b) capital only for group c) capital only for provinces d) capital for group and provinces.

If there is no capital at all as in case A, meetings will be in rotation, in the countries' capitals. Most of the personnel for the Group's affairs will be spread in all countries and employed by the Ministries of EEC. It makes sence to have somewhere, some coordinating bodies but it is not necessary. Case C puts more emphasis in provinces. The meetings will be in rotation, in the provinces' capitals. Provinces will have more autonomy.

Since we are dealing with provinces, we must explain that provinces are not suitable for every group. Group 1 (USA - Canada - Mexico) is a unique group, consisting of only three countries. This is because USA is the third largest in the world, in terms of population and Mexico the tenth. Provinces do not make sense when there are only three countries. Group 1, so far, is new NAFTA, USMCA. If they want to make additions and changes in the future, they can.

The organizational model for Group 4 was designed by Anti-NWO's real elite. It is expected to be a big success and the standard for most other groups. This will take quite a few years to prove a success. If other groups do not want to wait, they can use the model. The only problem is that organizational model and economic plan were designed with Group 4 in mind. So, the other groups would have to make the right modifications, in order to use them successfully.