Solving the problem 2
Solving the problem 2
In previous article, one of the Coalitions is A1-A3, M2-M3, S3-S4. USA is in A1 and Iran in M3. Some people believe that USA and Iran should not be in the same Coalition. There is some reasoning but also there is counterargument. First of all, being in the same Coalition does not mean that they will have close relations. Close cooperation is only inside the Groups, not in Subcoalitions or Coalitions.
USA will have close cooperation with Canada, Greenland and perhaps Iceland. Iran will have close cooperation with Pakistan and Afghanistan. The next level of cooperation is in a Subcoalition. A1 is together with A2 and M3 with M2. At a third level, there will be cooperation between Subcoalitions in the same Coalition. But that does not require that all the countries in a Subcoalition will have close relations with all the countries in another.
So USA can have relatively close relations with some countries in M2 Group like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrein etc. Iran could have relatively close relations with countries in A2 like Venezuela, Cuba etc. It is not necessary that Iran and USA have relations. Furthermore, instead of M2-M3, there could be M1-M2. Nevertheless, currently, it is more likely that E2 will be with M1.
Finally, if in A1 they want to avoid being with M3, they could place M2-M3 at a lower ranking. Also, they could try to convince R1-R4 to prefer A1-A2 instead of E2-M1. As far as we know, currently, R1 and R4 see positively being together with E2. Suppose that the Coalition is E2-M1, R1-R4, S1-S2. They could decide to have two three-Groups Subcoalitions E2-R1-R4 and M1-S1-S2. In next article "Incomplete Coalitions" we will present an even better solution.
Let's assume that India cancels the trade deal with EU. In that case, it can be among the leaders. We will have the eight two-Groups Subcoalitions shown in the fourth line of Table A - Appendix 32. The ranking of the four leaders is shown in Table C of Appendix 32. China will get R2-R3 and the Coalition will be complete. Also E2-M1 will get R1-R4. Both India (I) and A1-A2 have A3-E1 in the first place.
A3-E1 have made their choice to be together with India. If Free formation is followed, another Coalition will be complete A3-E1 with I. A veto can have the same result as Free formation. A3-E1 should be assigned randomly to either A1-A2 or I. The chances are 50-50. If it is assigned to A1-A2, A3-E1 could veto that, assuming that they want to follow their initial choice. The three other Coalitions will be like in Table B.
Could E1 be with E2? Theoretically this is possible but there are three big obstacles. Western European NWO psychopaths should regret all the horrible things they have done in the past millenium in order to attain their highly defective plan from the Dark Ages. This is very unlikely but for the sake of arguement let's assume that they start supporting AntiNWO's magnificent plan.
There are still two big problems. Nobody wants to have to deal with psychopaths. For some strange reason, India and Mercosur don't mind dealing with psychopaths. Also, Western Europeans made their choice with the two trade deals. They got what they asked for and should be happy. The rest of the Groups may not allow them to make changes. Nevetheless, we will examine E1-E2 Subcoalition.
It should be very clear though that E1 and E2 will be two SEPARATE, DISTINCT, INDEPENDENT GROUPS. The two-Groups Subcoalitions are shown in line 3 of Table A in Appendix 32. E2 is among the leaders of AntiNWO's plan. E1 will also be a leader, only because it is in the same Subcoalitions with E2. The ranking of the four leaders is presented in Table D of Appendix 32.
C will get R2-R3 and one Coalition will be complete. A1-A2 will get A3-M1. R1-R4 is in the first place in I's and E2's (E2-E1) list. E2-E1 will get it with free formation or veto, assuming that R1-R4 prefers that. Next on India's list is R2-R3 which has been assigned to China. With DMPR or the two of the three RLS methods, M2-M3 will go to India. Only with the third RLS method, M2-M3 will go to E2-E1 because they have higher ranking, second.
Let's say that any other method is used, except the third RLS. One more Coalition will be complete I M2-M3, provided that M2-M3 does not veto that. The other two Coalitions will be A1-A2, A3-M1, S1-S2 and E2-E1, R1-R4, S3-S4. Although initially A3 was not with A1-A2, they are in the same Coalition. They could make two three-Groups Subcoalitions A1-A2-A3 and M1-S1-S2.
Suppose that M2-M3 vetoes its placement with India. Next on India's list is S3-S4. That Coalition will be complete. E2-E1 will get M2-M3 and S1-S2 will go to A1-A2. So the two Coalitions will be A1-A2, A3-M1, S1-S2 and E2-E1, R1-R4, M2-M3. It is very unlikely that Western European NWO will regret all the horrible things they have done in the past millenium because psychopaths lack functional conscience.
Because of that, AntiNWO in E2 had some talks mainly with R1 (Japan, S. Korea etc) but with R4 as well (Australia, New Zealand etc) that went well. There could be a Subcoalition E2-R1. This is presented in the first line of Table A - Appendix 32. R4 is with A3. R1 is among the leaders. The ranking of the leaders is shown in Table E of Appendix 32. C gets R2-R3 and India E1-M1. So two of the Coalitions are complete. Both A1-A2 and E2-R1 have A3-R4 first on the list.
With free formation or veto, A3-R4 will choose where to go. We will examine both. First let's say that A1-A2 gets A3-R4. M2-M3 will go to E1-R1. The last two Coalitions will be A1-A2, A3-R4, S1-S2 and E1-R1, M2-M3, S3-S4. A3 is with A1-A2. If A3-R4 chooses E1-R1, the Coalitions will be A1-A2, M2-M3, S1-S2 and E1-R1, A3-R4, S3-S4. R4 is with E1-R1. In line 2 of Table A (Appendix 32), there is only one difference from line 1.
Instead of E1-M1 and M2-M3, there is E1-M2 and M1-M3. India will be with E1-M2. If A3-R4 chooses A1-A2, the other Coalition will be E1-R1, M1-M3, S3-S4. If it chooses E3-R1, the other Coalition will be A1-A2, M1-M3, S1-S2. We examined only four cases. There are two million twenty seven thousand and twenty one (2.027.021) more. That is mind buzzing. It gets easier when we find a good starting point.
Also, as it can be seen in Table A of Appendix 32, four of the subcoalitions are the same in all the examples, A1-A2 R2-R3 S1-S2 S3-S4. The two trade deals Western Europeans made with India and Mercosur could be a good starting point. If Western European NWO regrets all the horrible things they have done in the past millenium, E1-E2 is a good starting point.
This is very unlikely to happen because psychopaths can't feel guilt, remorse, empathy. So E2-R1 may be another good starting point. In next article we will examine a simpler and more flexible solution, INCOMPLETE COALITIONS WITHOUT SUBCOALITIONS. There are a few starting points and this makes the arrangement of the other Groups in Coalitions much easier.