Eveness vs flexibility

We need to clarify more the Group's population range issue. Initially we claimed that it is reasonable to have Groups between fifty and five hundred million (50-500 mln). That is not the range that we propose but the maximum range that seems reasonable. The smaller the range, the more even the Groups' populations will be. On the other hand, the larger the range, the more flexibility there is.

In the "Example of Plan B" and Appendix 18, the range of the seven Groups is three to four hundred million (300-400 million). In that case there will be two Groups in Europe. If the Groups in Europe are three, (Appendix 19) the range should be two to three hundred million (200-300 mln). USA will not have to be in any Group because it has a population above that (335,16 mln).

The problem is Canada. It has borders only with USA, so it has to be in a Group with USA. Otherwise Canada will not be in a Group. So if Canada is in a Group, the minimum population of that Group (Appendix 18) is three hundred seventy five million (375,36 mln). It could be more than that if more countries are added. If Canada is in the smallest possible Group, only with USA, the Group's upper limit has to be at least four hundred million (400 mln).

If Canada is in a Group, is it impossible to have three Groups in Europe? No, there can be three Groups in Europe, even if Canada is in a Group with USA. For that to happen, the Groups' population range should be two hundred to four hundred million (200 - 400 mln). Which of the two ranges is better? Obviously it is the smaller one, three to four hundred million (300 - 400 mln) because populations are more even.

This is preferable. Nevertheless, if for some reasons in Europe there must be three Groups, in order to have Canada in a Group, we would have to make the range two to three hundred million (200 - 400 mln). There is also the possibility to have four Groups in Europe. The Subgroups of Appendix 20 or Plan A will become Groups. In that case, the lower limit would have to be one hundred and fifty million (150 mln).

As it can be seen in Appendix 20, the population of the smallest (Subgroup that will be) Group is more than that. It is one hundred and sixty five million (165 mln) in Table A and one hundred and seventy five million (175 mln) in Table B. Also USA - Canada population (Appendix 18) is less than four hundred million (400 mln). Nevertheless, it is better if the limits are rounded to the closest fifty million multiple but not necessary.

The smallest the population range, the better it is. We examined cases were the range is at least one hundred million (100 mln). Can the range be less than that? Theoritically it can and it is much better to have fifty (50 mln) instead of a hundred million (100 mln). Actually twenty (20 mln) is better than fifty (50 mln) million. Ten (10 mln) is even better than twenty (20 mln).

In practical terms, it would be very difficult to have a range of fifty million (50 mln). In the "Example of Plan B" and Appendix 18, we can see that Groups 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 are in the range three hundred and fifty to four hundred million (350 - 400 mln). But Groups 2 and 3 are below that, in the range three hundred to three hundred and fifty million (300 - 350 mln).

So although is is undoubtely much better to have a fifty million (50 mln) range, it may be not be easy at all to obtain that. The range should not be decided in advance. Instead, when forming the Groups, the effort should be to have the smallest possible range. We should not forget that Groups should fit in four Coalitions with roughly equal population.

So there are two goals; a) have the smallest possible Group population range b) fit the Groups into four Coalitions with roughly equal population. This is where computer programming will be a great assistance. But this will be only auxiliary to the negotiations for forming the Groups and the Coalitions. We have not done that programming and as far as we know neither has AntiNWO.

Althouth simpler than AI, it is not very easy. Also computer programming alone will not do the job without the negotiations. Computer programming can generate many alternatives of Groups with relatively small population range and Coalitions with roughly equal size. Most of them will be unacceptable by the countries. Negotiations will provide additional input to make the outcome acceptable.

In "Sum up Plan B" we claimed that most likely Europe will be divided in two parts. It must be decided if it will be the clean or the extented version, only European countries (plus Georgia Armenia) or a part of Asia added to eastern European Group, Central Asian countries - Azerbaijan (or Turkiye). These seem the most reasonable scenarios.

Nevertheless, we can't predict with certainty the outcome of the negotiations and computer programming. So although these two seem to be the most reasonable scenarios, we can't be certain that these will be decided. The outcome may be something different. AntiNWO's Plan B FLUIDITY can OVERCOME ALL OBSTACLES. Increasing the Group population range, increases the flexibility.

Although the smallest the range, the better it will be, if there is no other way to overcome obstacles, the range should become larger. There is a balance between small range and flexibility. Ideally, the range should be small, no more than one hundred million (100 mln). But if this is not possible due to various obstacles, it can become larger.

We should repeat to emphasize it that NWO vicious cabal has been left behind. They are still in the Dark Ages while AntiNWO keeps up with technological and scientific advancements. NWO's maniacs are dinosaurs that will become extinct. The problem is that their extinction is taking too long. It is certain though that they will become extinct. The sooner this happens, the better it is because the world can leave the Dark Ages that NWO's psychopaths have brought.