Government declares Wikipedia a Terrorist Organisation

Government declares Wikipedia a Terrorist Organisation brainwashing the public.

The most remarkable thing about that attention grabbing headline is that most people will have one of two first reactions;  Either they will think "About time." or they will be shocked and horrified.  But note: they will be shocked and horrified precisely because it is believable.  I would go one stage further and I will make yet another Toxic Drums prediction:  The government WILL state that Wikipedia is a terrorist organisation.

It is predictable because every dictatorship in modern times has accused its opposition of being Terrorists.  In every case the opposition that they are objecting to is the 'truth' and better than that - the collective truth.  In other words when the population are so fed up with the charade, the fake simulacra, the matrix presented by the dictatorial control freaks in order to maintain their perverse domination that they rise up in agreement that the façade is a fake reality, an untruth and a lie then the last resort before physical violence is to declare the dissenters as brainwashed terrorists.

What finally brought me here to this blog today was watching a government charade of a debate in the House of Commons.  I read about it (and watched it) on the Voodoo Shack Lady's blog on a page entitled "Outrageous DWP refusals".  Voodoo Shack Lady made a delightful, expressive and compelling case against the government and their disgusting attitude towards the welfare 'reforms'.  She claimed that her "flabber was utterly gasted" at the performance of Esther McVey (re-spelt McVile), the Minister for Disabled People, speaking on behalf of the absent Mark Hoban, Minister of State for Work and Pensions.  McVey was attempting answer a question put by the Right (in this case surprisingly true) Honourable Michael Meacher MP.  Although I am often shocked by politicians Esther McVey disturbed my inner soul with her incredulous bull-shit vomiting.  Jesus himself referred to Sugar Coated Faecal Matter and two thousand years later we still have it spewing forth its sulphurous puke in the higher echelons of power.  This was one of the more disgusting perversions of linguistic pollution I have heard in a long time.  Admittedly she is destined for greater power because she is clearly made of the same material as the most heinous Iain Duncan Smith.  Hoping to evoke the winning accolade of Godwin's Law I will say that the more I listen to, or read, the words of these 'rulers' of ours the more I cannot tell them apart from the worst excesses of the Third Reich.

I don't advise you to watch this debate because it is too horrible but here it is for verification of what I claim.

Only this morning I was woken listening to the radio (Radio 4) and it was reported that William Hague had said that the only plausible explanation of the chemical weapons attack in Syria was that it was perpetrated by the Assad regime.  Well that was what I heard.  But when I check an article by the BBC (that might be the British Bullshit Corporation - not, as I heard some BBC executive once state that it was the British Broadcasting COMPANY - God they make you sick - they don't even know the name of their own organisation) (and - just to make matters worse - I went to the BBC web site and searched for their name.  They seem to be so arrogant that they don't need to explain what BBC stands for.  Not surprising, then, that the people that run it don't even know what it is called.  But guess what?  I looked on Wikipedia and under BBC and the first thing it says... "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a ..."  But then that must be a piece of brainwashing propaganda.) entitled "William Hague believes Assad behind chemical attack" I noted that what he actually said was "I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria" and he went on to say "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime." which IS slightly different.  I have also heard reports that the UN team have their suspicions that this attack was perpetrated by the rebels but they are only suspicions.  So it seems that it is the BBC reporters who are massaging the message for public consumption and either altering it to suit their own agenda or possibly simply re-presenting it in their own words and not caring to notice the embedded bias.

This kind of biased reporting is called prejudice or, worse, propaganda.  But whatever the case the Americans and the British have no business spending billions of dollars or pounds killing innocent people in the name of 'peace' given their track record in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  I read a paper produced by the American administration many years ago outlining the future objectives of controlling energy production in the Middle East.  Their objectives required control of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Then some years later the World Trade Center towers came down and fortunately it was caused by some horrible people in Afghanistan and supported by some other horrid people in Iraq.  The horrible people in Afghanistan were a highly sophisticated group of modern Terrorists called Al Qaida who were hiding in caves in the mountains.  The very same mountains from which the very same 'horrible' people pestered the Russian army when it tried to invade Afghanistan.  The very same 'horrible' people - namely Osama bin Laden and his private army - who were funded by America to fight the Russians.  Then recently I was investigating maps of the region and noticed the connections between Europe/Russia/China and Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Israel/Syria/Turkey/Azerbaijan/Georgia and on the other side of Iran Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/Bangladesh/Myanmar and I also found information on gas and oil pipelines networking the region and like a simple game of Risk I began to see the bigger picture.  It was always Europe's objective to control this area to dominate the power supplies to Europe from the Middle East in competition against Russia and China.  So, from that perspective the Europeans require Syria as part of their control of the region.  In fact, next to Iraq, it might be the most important piece in the jig-saw.  With that in mind one has to wonder if the Europeans/Americans didn't supply Sarin gas to the rebels.  Given that the UN headquarters are IN New York (a city in America) would the Syrian authorities who are fighting 'horrible' people (previously funded by the USA) let the UN in to 'confirm' that the Sarin gas attack was caused by Assad and his cronies to justify a full scale invasion by America and Europe.

Now I have forgotten - Who were the Terrorists?

It's a bloody mess.