Three Groups Subcoalitions

The Subcoalitions were not mentioned incidentally in previous article. They have good chances to happen. R1 will have Japan, S. Korea and other countries. R4 will have Australia, New Zealand and other countries. These countries are not ASEAN members. There have been talks for many years to form some type of Group, like ASEAN countries have done. This has been going on for long time. It is not something new.

E2 is Northern and Eastern Europe. It includes SFA, Eastern European countries and three small Asian countries, Cyprus, Georgia, Armeina. SFA is Scandinavia, Finland and Austria. Scandinavian countries are Sweden, Norway, Denmark. At a first glance, the most reasonable seems that E2 should be together with Western European Group E1. With a more careful look, this seems very difficult.

E2 and E1 are two SEPARATE DISTINCT Groups in AntiNWO's plan. E1-E2 is NOT EU. NWO's plan has four Unions, European, American, Asian, African. NWO's plan started in Western Europe, sometime in the DARK AGES. Western Europe (Germany, France, Italy, UK) is the main supporter of NWO's plan and the main opponent of AntiNWO's. In order for E1-E2 to happen, Western European NWO must support AntiNWO's plan. This is unlikely to happen.

Western European NWO is responsible for the wars in Ukraine and Yugoslavia, World War II, the paneuropean Napoleonic wars, the sack of Constantinope and the demise of Byzantine Empire, among other things. These people are psychopaths. They insist with manic obsession on a higly defective plan that has failed tremendously. Every day that goes by, the chances of E1 and E2 being together in a Subcoalition or even Coalition decrease substantially.

Since it is very unlikely that Western European NWO will support AntiNWO's plan, AntiNWO in E2 had some talks with R1 counties that went really well. There is economic and geographic proximity. Given that there were already discussions for a Group that will include Japan, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, it was reasonalbe to include R4 as well. There have been some talks between E2 and R4 countries that went well too.

So the idea was for a Subcoalition E2-R1-R4. As it was explained in previous article, a three-Groups Subcoalition can be problematic. It can only be combined with another three-Groups Subcoalition. If another three Groups Subcoalition can be found, there would be no problem. There are two possible choices for three-Groups Subcoalitions, M1-M2-M3 and A1-A2-A3.

There have been talks for years or even decades to have some type of cooperation between the Muslim countries of North Africa, Southwestern and Central Asia. The American continent is unique and different than the other continents. All the other continents are an ocean apart. So the other Groups are across an ocean. If geographic proximity is prefered, there should be a three-Groups Subcoalition, A1-A2-A3.

E2-R1-R4 could form a Coalition with M1-M2-M3 or A1-A2-A3. We will examine how the rest of the Coalitions can be in each alternative. After the two trade deals, it is obvious to every one that India, Western European Group E1 and South American A3 are ready to form a Coalition. There is only one way this will not happen, if USA insists to be with A3, in Subcoalition A1-A2-A3.

But USA is a lot more interested in A2 than in A3. Latinos are almost 20% of USA's population. They are a substantial percentage of the voters. Latino voters come from A2. The percentage that comes from A3 is very small. Recently, Trump had expressed interest for four countries, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba. These are countries USA would like to have influence on. They are all in A2.

But people in USA do not want them to be in their Group. We should remind that close cooperation is in a Group. In Subcoalitions and Coalitions, relations are much looser. Obviously, in Subcoalitions relations are a little closer, compared to relations in Coalitions. In USA's Group, there will be only Canada, Greenland and perhaps Iceland. These are the only countries with which USA will have close cooperation.

It is possible that USA will not care very much to be together with A3. In that case, I-E2-A3 Coalition is almost certain. We have already two Coalitions, E2-R1-R4 with M1-M2-M3 and I-E2-A3. A1-A2 will be a two-Groups Subcoalition. R2-R3 will be based on ASEAN. Obviously, some adjustments will be necessary so that the R (Rest of Asia and Oceania) Groups have roughly the same population.

Two more two-Groups Subcoalitions can be made with S (Subsaharan) Groups, for instance S1-S2, S3-S4. So there will be China and four two-Groups Subcoalitions, A1-A2, R2-R3, S1-S2, S3-S4. One of these Subcoalitions will be with China and the other three will form the other Ccoalition. The alternatives are 1) C, R2-R3 and A1-A2, S1-S2, S3-S4 2) C, S1-S2 and A1-A2, R2-R3, S3-S4 3) C S3-S4 and A1-A2, R2-R3, S1-S2.

Suppose that USA insists to be with A3. In that case Subcoalition E2-R1-R4 could be with A1-A2-A3. A3 can be replaced with M1 in E1's Subcoalition. So the other Coalition will be I and E1-M1. There will be China left and four two-Groups Subcoalitions R2-R3, S1-S2, S3-S4, M2-M3. The alternatives are 1) C, R2-R3 and M2-M3, S1-S2, S3-S4 2) C, S1-S2 and M2-M3, R2-R3, S3-S4 3) C, S3-S4 and M2-M3, R2-R3, S1-S2 4) C, M2-M3 and R2-R3, S1-S2, S3-S4.

We should point out that the leaders of AntiNWO's plan are A1, E2 and China. India can be also a leader, it it cancles the deal with EU. After this is done, it can be in the same Coalition with E1 and have unlimited free trade. E1 is not EU. There is no EU in AntiNWO's plan. Some people in AntiNWO believe that the four leaders, A1, E2, C, I should be in different Coalitions.

In the option that was just explained, there is no M1-M2-M3 Subcoalition. S4 could be in a Subcoalition with E1. The Coalition would be I and E1- S4. The fourth three-Groups Subcoalition could be S1-S2-S3. There are three ways the four Subcoalitions can be combined 1) E2-R1-R4 with M1-M2-M3 and A1-A2-A3 with S1-S2-S3 2) E2-R1-R4 with A1-A2-A3 and M1-M2-M3 with S1-S2-S3 3) E2-R1-R4 with S1-S2-S3 and A1-A2-A3 with M1-M2-M3.

In the second, E2 is with A1, two of the leaders are together. This is not forbidden but some people believe that the LEADERS should be the FOUR POLES that would GATHER the REST of the GROUPS in the Coalitions. In the third, USA is with M1-M2-M3 which is the most anti-USA area in the world. Nevertheless, it is a possible option. Some people prefer A1-A2-A3 with S1-S2-S3 because a substantial percentage of people in USA comes from Africa.

E1-M1-S1 is a Subcoalition with geographic proximity. S2-S3-S4 and E2-M2-M3 could be the other two three-Groups Subcoalitions. Another alternatives are E1-E2-R1 and R2-R3-R4. Anyone interested can try to find all the possible three-Groups Subcoalitions. These should be two or four, not one or three because two three-Groups Subcoalitions make one Coalition.

The point is that Groups should be actively involved in AntiNWO's plan because this is the way they will get the best possible placement. Free formation has good chances to happen. Many Groups have started talks on how they can get a good placement in a Subcoalition and a Coalition. In the end, the leftovers will be dumped in a Pseudo-Coalition. Most likely, that placement will be bad and it will last for centuries.