Pseudo-Coalitions

Coalitions are a superior alternative to NWO's four Unions. They are optional in AntiNWO's plan. The active supporters of AntiNWO's plan will decide if there will be Coalitions and how these will be. It is ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE by AntiNWO if there are NO COALITIONS. So If a country or a Group does not want Coalitions, they should get involved in the decision making process.

Requirement for that is to accept AntiNWO's Grouping. The 10+2 Groups are not optional. But there is room for fine tuning, which will be done by the decision makers. Suppose that a country or a Group accepts AntiNWO's grouping but does not want Coalitions. Is it certain that if they get involved in the decision making process there will be no Coalitions?

This depends on what the majority will decide. It is possible that most of decision makers will want Coalitions. But there is also the alternative of PSEUDO-COALITIONS. These are Coalitions where relations between Groups are distant or very distant. So the Groups that do not want Coalitions could be placed in a Pseudo-Coalition. This will be better understood with an example.

We will use numbers for Groups because it is easier and takes less space. AntiNWO's Groups are; 1) North America 2) South & Central America 3) Western Europe 4) Eastern Europe & ACA 5) Arab Group 6) Northern Subsaharan Africa 7) Southern Subsaharan Africa 8) Southwestern Asia 9) Northeastern Asia 10) Southeastern Asia & Oceania 11) India 12) China. ACA is Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries.

Suppose that all Groups participate in decision making. This is hypothetical and unlikely to happen. At least Western European Group 3 is not expected to participate. Voters prefer AntiNWO's plan but governments support NWO's. We should emphasize that not all countries from a Group are needed. A GROUP can PROCEED with ONLY a CORE and for some period it can be INFORMAL.

Let's assume that only 2, 3, 8, 10 do not want Coalitions. So the majority prefers Coalitions. The four Groups that do not want Coalitions can be placed in a Pseudo-Coalition. It will be something like the independent MP's (Member of Parliaments) that do not belong in any party. The Pseudo-Coalition is not a real Coalition. In real Coalitions, Groups have closer relations among them, compared to relations with other Groups.

There is though a catch with Pseudo-Coalitions. Suppose that in the future the four Groups (2, 3, 8, 10) change their opinion and want to be in a real Coalition. Since the rest of the Groups will already be in real Coalitions, the only alternative the four Groups will have is to make the Pseudo-Coalition a real Coalition. So a Pseudo-Coalition could be a temporary situation.

Two of AntiNWO's Coalitions have four Groups. China's and India's Coalitions have two Groups. Suppose that also Group 5 does not favor Coalitions. So there are five Groups that do not want Coalitions. An effort should be made to change the opinion of one Group so that there will be four Groups in a Pseudo-Coalition. Suppose this is impossible.

In that case, one real Coalition will have three Groups and the Pseudo-Coalition five. But this will be only temporary because the first Group that will change opinion will be placed in the real Coalition that has three Groups. What if there are three Groups that do not want Coalitions. Then a fourth Group will be placed in the Pseudo-Coalition which could become a real Coalition sometime in the future.

Pseudo-Coalitions can also be used in another way. This time, we will use a more realistic example. It seems that 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 are active supporters of AntiNWO's plan. Also 9 and 10 could turn from passive to active supporters. We should emphasize that there is considerable UNCERTAINTY in the PRESENT and the situation could CHANGE in the FUTURE. Nevertheless, this is how matters seem currently.

So the decision makers will be 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 while 3, 6, 7, 8 will not participate in the decision making process. Suppose that AntiNWO's active supporters decide that the Coalitions should be as follows; A) 1-2-3-4 B) 5-6-7-8 C) 10-12 D) 9-11. There are some problems with this combination. In Coalition A, Group 3 will not participate. Also in Coalition B, Groups 6, 7 and 8 will not participate. These Groups might not even exist.

Most likely, they will participate in the future. But this might take a long time, years or even decades. So Coalitions A and B will be incomplete for long time. We explained that there are three thousand one hundred and fifty (3.150) possible combinations for Coalitions. But not all of these have to be examined and evaluated because some kind of reasoning should be followed.

The reasoning could be as simple as FORMING COALITIONS with the AVAILABLE GROUPS. In this Case, 3-6-7-8 that are NOT AVAILABLE will be placed in a PSEUDO-COALITION of LEFTOVERS. If in the future they want to form a Coalition, their only alternative would be to make the Pseudo-Coalition a real Coalition. The other eight (8) Groups could make three (3) Coalitions any way they like. There are forty two (42) combinations!

The AVAILABILITY REASONING could be used with only a few Groups. Suppose that only 1, 2, 4, 5 are participating in the decision making because they are the only active supporters of AntiNWO's spectacular plan. They decide to have Coalitions. They could have one complete Coalition with the available four Groups. They do NOT need anyone's PERMISSION to form AntiNWO's Groups and a Coalition.

NWO did not ask anyone's approval for its ridiculous plan. The six EEC founding members did not ask anyone's permission to form a Group. Long before the Group was officially formed, the six countries had unofficially formed a Group. EEC did not ask permission from other countries when it added more members. Only the governments of the new members had to agree. Very often this was done against voters' will.

The superiority of AntiNWO's plan is undeniable. It is certain that eventually it will prevail. So it is VERY SAFE to PROCEED with a CORE of COUNTRIES, according to AntiNWO's GROUPING. Not all countries have to participate and there is NO PERMISSION NEEDED from the REST of the GROUPS. If AntiNWO's active supporters want, they can form Coalitions.

It would be more realistic to form Coalitions among the available Groups. The rest of the Groups could be placed in Pseudo-Coalitions. But Coalitions are optional and not necessary. AntiNWO's Groups can function very well without Coalitions. Whether Coalitions are beneficial or not should be decided by the leaders of AntiNWO's spectacular plan. It is only urgent that AntiNWO's Groups PROCEED with a CORE of COUNTRIES and this could be INFORMAL for some time.