Britain Would Rank 2nd Poorest as an American State

Vatic Note:  No one deserves a better exposure than Britain.  With all the illuminati things they do undercover, they should be first up on the "don't trust" list.  My research, through bits and pieces has identified Britains role in all of this going as far back as WW I.  They are the ones that set up the middle east as it now looks.   Like America, the British people are NOT their leaders, who operate independant of the "peoples" best interests and work only for the best interests of the Rothschild international Zionist bankers.

In the first world war it was the Ottoman empire divided up with their oil resources, split between many small arab countries, and Khazars were put in place by the British as royalty to run those countries, but they called themselves arabs, and they are not arabs.  They are now allies of Israel, which is Saudi Arabia,  Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, who all have royalty who are not arabs, rather they work with their fellow khazars in Israel.

This was to set up the conflict later on when they would take control, through deception,  over the middle east by Non british subjects and since the kHazars are turkits and look a lot like Arabs, this was the cleverist way to achieve that objective.  Since we know the history of how the Ashkenazi so called Jews came into existance, we now know that these are not Jews.  That is an important point.

The purpose, for Britain doing all this, was to gain complete and total control of all oil and natural gas resources in the middle east.  Its why they need Christians to war with arabs so we wipe each other out and leave them standing to control it all.  They could care less about the people of those nations.  They use them like pawns in a chess game.  That is the intended objective of the coming WW III, that and to take away from the Russian people their natural resources as well.  Unbeknownst to the Russian people, Putin is one of them.  He is positioning himself as the hero to take on the new nazi's of America run by the Zionists.

Then in WW II, the British set up Palestine and rammed through the UN, recognition of Israel as a state without a single consideration for the true nation of Palestine.  Even the Torah Jews were upset since that was not how the Torah, the word of God, said how the retaking of Israel was suppose to happen, and it was a result of the birth of Zionism, to take back Israel through violence, which GOD SPECIFICALLY FORBID THE REAL JEWS TO DO.

That is how you know these are Khazars, as are all the immigrant settlers from Russia.  Clever scam indeed, and all of it, so Britain could reclaim their place in the world as the greatest empire that they lost when they lost our revolution.  They have wanted it back ever since.  MI6 Created Mossad, CIA, and the intel services of India and Pakistan.  The Zionists gain control of the globe politically and Britain gets to be the global economic powerhouse as a pay off for aiding the Zionists.

Now why did they create these intel services??  As Truman said,  "I do not know who the CIA works for, but its not for us, they NEVER report to me, and I do not know who they do report to,  I wish I had never signed the bill that created them."  Kennedy had to fire the head of the CIA for his working for someone else as well.  He was assassinated with their help. They created these intel services to do the black ops that was need to raise funds outside the system, banks money laundering them, and then no questions asked about using those funds to achieve their satanic agenda.

These khazars have full control and run Great Britain, which is not so "Great" anymore, and this below is a test run to prove to you, the American citizen,  what will happen with these people in control.  This is us, if they ever globalize and take control of the planet.  They have absolutely no loyalty to their country of Origin, only to Israel. 


Britain Would Rank 2nd Poorest as an American State  (VN: this is your NWO results, how do you like it so far?)
http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2014/08/26/britain-rank-2nd-poorest-american-state/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
by Fraser Nelson,  Wonkwire Rollcall, 8/26/2014

Problems similar to those in Missouri exist in Britain, too, but are just better hidden

A sign left behind after a protest in Ferguson, Missouri following the police shooting of an unarmed black man Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Yet again, America has laid on what is, to British eyes, a horror show. A white policeman goes after a black teenager for jaywalking, and ends up shooting him dead. Protests ensue, attended by his stepfather who carries a sign saying how police “just executed my unarmed son”.

As protests grow, Molotov cocktails are thrown and riot police called in – this time armed with automatic guns and mini-tanks supplied by the Pentagon. The streets of Ferguson in St Louis start to look like a battle zone – and one that seems to put on display a brutal world of American inequality.

The riots in London would have looked pretty bad to the Americans: neither picture is a fair representation of a country. But there is a temptation, in Britain, to think that the American poor have it much worse – and the black protesters in Ferguson chanting “no justice, no peace” do indeed have precious little of either.

The United States may be a great place to be rich, we like to think, but they treat their deprived appallingly over there. We tend to watch reports from poorer American states with a shudder, thankful that our country is run along different, more compassionate lines.

But if Britain were to somehow leave the European Union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of those poor states. If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union.


We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks. Only Mississippi has lower economic output per head than the UK; strip out the South East and Britain would rank bottom. We certainly have our problems; we’re just better at concealing them.

America, being richer, is more unequal than Britain – and has a long list of genuine outrages. A white baby born in America today is likely to live five years longer than a black one, for example. No such racial gap exists in Britain. This is one of a great many statistics that US campaigners have at their disposal to draw attention to inequality.

Almost half of black Americans drop out of high school and then tend to earn less. There is much argument about why this is so: racial discrimination and dire education are often cited as causes. “High unemployment and high rates of out-of-wedlock birth leave too many of them without guidance,” according to a piece in the Wall St Journal.

It’s a passionate debate, which has no real counterpart in Britain. We have our share of problems, but they attract less interest. A boy born in Liverpool is expected to live five years less than one born in Westminster – an outrage, but one which we have grown used to.



In fact, you only have to walk across Westminster Bridge and life expectancy drops by five years. As our politicians enjoy summer drinks on Parliament’s terrace, they can hear Big Ben echoing from buildings in a part of the city that badly needs their help. But they will have known this for years, and grown inured to it. Our poverty is hiding in plain sight.

We have specialised in building council houses in the middle of cities, and their proximity has created the illusion of social cohesion. In America, rich and poor keep more of a distance, partly because there is more space that allows the rich to move out. Cities like St Louis have been emptying for decades due to “white flight”, where the wealthier workers up sticks to the suburbs. In 1970, the population of Ferguson was 99 per cent white. Now it’s 67 per cent black – but the school boards, police force and judiciary are overwhelmingly white. The ingredients for racial tension are all there.

Eric Holder, America’s Attorney General, visited Ferguson earlier this week, offering his understanding not just as a lawyer, but as a black man. People there told him “about the mistrust they have at a young age”, he said afterwards. If he had sat down with black Brits, he might have heard the same: a poll earlier this year showed that most ethnic minorities think the police are too quick to use force. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has been worried for some time about the number of blacks stopped and searched in the capital. As she knows, Brits are in no position to preach.

When it comes to inequality of schooling, Britain needs humility more than ever. Much has been made in recent days about the inferior education given to poor blacks in America. Britain is innocent of this charge, but is it really so much better that our poor whites (ie, those on free school meals) get lower exam grades than any other ethnic group? American campaigners are outraged that their most deprived pupils do worse at school than deprived pupils in Estonia and Vietnam. The same is true for deprived Brits, but fewer people make a fuss about it.

So the poor in both countries are being failed by an inadequate education system, but only Americans get so angry that they make films about it – like Davis Guggenheim’s Waiting for Superman. It tells a story more compelling, and horrific, than the trouble in Ferguson. The star is Geoffrey Canada, whose Harlem Success Academy managed to reverse the black-white achievement gap in maths (among many other successes).

The viewer follows a mother from the Bronx in her desperate attempt to find a place there for her son – one of 792 students applying for 40 places. Admission is decided by a public lottery, to which the parents are invited as numbers are pulled out of a bingo machine. The ending is almost too painful to watch.

Such inequalities are just as bad in England’s education system, of course, but there will be no film about them. Our school lottery is done by letters sent out from councils. British poverty is one of the least glamorous subjects in the country, a cause for which no one will wear a wristband.

When Michael Gove was education secretary, he had a Waiting for Superman poster framed on his wall. He wanted to dedicate his time in the job to fighting for the sort of people who tend not to vote, and are – ergo – easily ignored. As he found out, there is precious little political capital in doing so. He was demoted – apparently because he was fighting too hard, too close to an election.

Gove joins the line of reformers, Labour and Tory, who fell after trying to do something about the causes of inequality – making too much fuss over a problem that is, politically, easy to ignore. Managing poverty is easier than trying to tackle it: we would rather build motorways with exits directly into the upmarket parts of town (Glasgow) or erect a gate around new housing developments, cutting the risk of crime (and exposure to the community).

Britain’s welfare state, and the tax that goes with it, is so costly that it feels like we ought to have solved the problem by now. Instead, we have created the most expensive poverty in the world – and managed to hide it in houses that look nicer than America’s ghettoes. The Government’s welfare reforms are tackling this, but it is far from clear that the education reforms will keep going without Gove. It’s understandable to look at Ferguson and wonder how things could go so wrong for a country. But there is plenty to be shocked about at home.

Related Articles

• Trainspotting was better than health warnings in fight against drugs
  20 Aug 2014
• Unfit Gloucestershire police told to eat healthy
  19 Aug 2014
• Police hunt Polish suspect in hunt for burglars that attacked law lecturer
  18 Aug 2014

---

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.