Plan B2 clarifications

NWO's supporters will not participate in the decision making regarding the grouping, the Coalitions and any other issue in AntiNWO's Plan. How can they participate if they are against the plan? Eventhough they will certainly not participate directly, they could participate indirectly. Western Europeans are the main supporters of NWO's plan. But there are other countries as well, like Turkiye.

German or Western European politicians could kindly request their counterparts in USA to take seriously into consideration their preferences regarding grouping. Likewise, Turks could inform Russians about their preferences and ask them to consider them. Nevertheless, it would be AntiNWO's decision makers' choice how seriously they will consider the preferences of NWO's supporters and how seriously they will support them during decision making.

NWO's and AntiNWO's plans are full global packages. They include a) grouping and world structure b) power of supranational entities c) type and authority of global body d) organizational and economic model for Groups. Group relations and ideology could also be added. In NWO's package, there is a certain ideology included, NWO ideology. AntiNWO gives power to nations and leaves ideological issues to be settled at national level.

AntiNWO has Plan A and Plan B. Plan B2 is a more flexible variation of Plan B. Plans B and B2 are also full global packages. The main difference between Plan A and Plan B or B2 is in grouping. The rest are the same like in Plan A. Obviously, the global body will not be 10+2 Council. If the Groups are fourteen (14), it will be 14+2 Council. If they are eighteen (18), it will be 18+2 Council.

Above, we show again the table from "Size and number in Plan B2" that has the number of Groups (except India and China) and the average population size of a Group. In the example presented in "Size and number in Plan B2", the average size of eight Groups was 349 million. In that case, it will be a 15+2 Council. The maximum possible number of Groups is 22 and the average size is 236 million.

In that case, the global body will be a 22 + 2 = 24 Council. Twenty four (24) people can still fit in a large conference room. They may need a large conference table or more than one tables. Twenty four is still much lower than the almost two hundred (200) countries that are in UN. The participants in the world's Council, will be divided into four Groups, according to the Coalitions.

AntiNWO's world structure remains the same in Plan B2, as in Plan A. The levels of aggregation are; a) Regions b) Subgroups c) Groups d) Subcoalitions e) Coalitions f) Megacoalitions g) World Council. In Plan A, only Groups and World Council are required. All the rest are optional. Subgroups and Regions are recommended, wherever they are possible. In Plans B and B2, Coalitions are also a requirement but the rest remain optional.

Contrary to NWO's plan, AntiNWO's is decentralized. Power to nations is a main notion and extremely important in AntiNWO's plan. Supranational entities will have the absolute minimum powers necessary for their proper functioning. Most of the powers will remain at national level. The World Council will deal only with the global issues which are very few.

Cooperation inside Groups will be close. It will be closer in Subgroups and even closer in Regions. Relations in Coalitions will be loose. Because cooperation will be close in Groups, geographical (spatial) proximity is necessary. Countries must be one next to the other. Since relations in Coalitions will be loose, geographical proximity is not necessary.

Groups (and countries in B2) do not have to be one next to the other. Many people in AntiNWO believe that it is better if the Groups do not have geographical proximity because in this way there will be interaction between different parts of the world. Also this may fit well with existing relations between countries. There can also be be a combination. Some Groups in a Coalition may have spatial proximity while others may not.

In AntiNWO's Plan A, Mexico is in North American Group with USA, Canada, Greenland and perhaps Iceland, Cuba and some Caribbean countries. After Bunny's performance during Super Bowl's half time, American (USA) people do not want Mexico or any Latin American country in their Group. Bunny effect is the reason AntiNWO's Plan B or B2 have more chances than Plan A.

Bunny effect may have reduced the probability of AntiNWO's Plan A but has increased the probability of Plan B and Plan B2. Overall, it has increased the chances of AntiNWO's plan (A, B of B2). In USA, they are against the participation of even one Latin American country, Mexico, as in North American Group according to AntiNWO's Plan A. They are even more against the participation of all Latin American countries, as in American Union according to NWO's plan.

USA had acquired a large part of Mexico in the past. But this was almost two centuries ago. Recently, they have expressed interest for only Canada and Greenland, not Mexico. In Plan B or B2, USA is together in the same Group with countries (Greenland will be independent) they have interest for. Trump has also mentioned Iceland. Some people thought that he confused Greenland with Iceland. May be it was intentional.

Subcoalitions are optional. They have roughly one billion people. Groups (and countries in Plan B2) composing Subcoalitions do not have to be one next to the other. But if this is possible, it may be better. Geographical (spatial) continuity in Subcoalitions is preferable but not necessary. There can never be an American Union, according to NWO's plan because the highly defective plan from the Dark Ages that has failed enormously will end up in the garbage can.

But there could be American Subcoalition. This can only happen if certain rappers, Grammy recepients, Hollywood weirdos, radical left or liberal politicians and journalists stop doing what they are doing. If they do not stop, North American Group, consisting of USA, Canada, Greenland and perhaps Iceland will be in a different Coalition from the Latin American countries.

Until decision makers can agree on an option of Plan B or B2, PLAN A REMAINS AntiNWO's PROPOSAL. AntiNWO must have a specific grouping because NWO's grouping is specific. Plan A can be viewed as an option of Plan B or B2. It should be included for consideration in the decision making. After all, It could be decided that the grouping of Plan A is the best possible. If another option in Plan B or B2 is chosen, it will become AntiNWO's proposal.