Death in Oregon
by David Sims
THE RECENT attack by the US government against Americans in Oregon, and the arrests made by the FBI, changes nothing in connection with the morality of the situation. The protesters remain the good guys, regardless of whatever laws they might have broken. The US government remains the bad guys, regardless of whatever laws they might have been enforcing.
Why? Because the law, itself, is corrupt. It’s dirty. It was written in order to justify the government’s use of economic sanctions, police coercion, and military force against citizens of the country who own, live on, and use land that the government wants to incorporate as “federal lands.”
The US government is, in this matter, a tool — a collection agency and a holding corporation — of the Jewish bankers. Whenever someone won’t sell his land, nor can be foreclosed on, the government sets upon him with economic measures intended to run him out of business. If that fails, they keep the property owner under constant surveillance so that any least violation of the laws will be seen and disproportionate penalties handed down by the courts.
Sooner or later, the victims of this bullying try to protest using the tactics of civil disobedience that were pioneered by leftist agitators in the middle of the 20th century. But non-violent sit-ins and occupies aren’t tolerated when the people who are doing them aren’t leftists. In those cases, tanks will roll. The protesters will be shot. The media, also run by Jews, will portray any massacres that happen as “justice.”
When the Oregon protest was broken by the FBI, we all lost. Again. We will just keep on losing until we find a way to defeat the government or get rid of the bankers whose attack-dog the government is.
The Oregon protesters made most of the mistakes that volunteers (amateurs) usually do. They had a live feed out to the web during their protest, which carried a lot of the macho tough-talk that beleaguered men use to shore up each others’ courage. The police were recording it all for use as propaganda in the media, as “evidence” in the courts, and as a justification for an eventual Waco-style massacre of the protesters. A live feed out is a good idea, but it is also necessary that the communication channel doesn’t carry anything that can be used against the communicators. It takes only one loose tongue to turn that asset into a disastrous liability. That loose tongue could belong to an infiltrator or to someone who wants to social-climb by showing how gung-ho he is.
A news report stated: “Protest leaders were on their way to a community meeting set up by local residents when authorities attempted to pull them over, according to a law enforcement official who described the dramatic showdown.”
Also a mistake. Never assume that the government will honor a flag of truce or respect the terms of a cease-fire. It won’t. Any attempt to get the protesters out of their stronghold is a trick, and all of the promises will be lies. The government has prepared an ambush. Don’t just walk into it.
There is a witness account of the shooting of LaVoy Finicum that varies with the police account. Upon discovering that the “community meeting set up by local residents” was, in fact, an ambush set up by the federal police, Finicum made an effort to escape. While trying to make a turn on an icy road, Finicum’s car slid into a snow bank and got stuck.
Finicum left the car and began approaching the police.
Here is where the accounts begin to diverge.
The police say that Finicum “made a motion” toward his gun. The eyewitness says that Finicum did not attempt to reach his gun, but had his hands in the air. (Is there a dashcam video this time that might prove who is telling the truth?) The eyewitness furthermore says that Finicum, while approaching the police with his hands up, invited the police to “just shoot me then.” They did.
Quote: “Harney County Sheriff David Ward blamed the occupiers for the death of the outspoken protester.”
Of course he did. Officialdom will always assign blame to the other side. That this is predictable does not mean it is true. After all, who killed whom is pretty clear, but there are conflicts in the testimony regarding the circumstances. The lack of any physical or video evidence to resolve those conflicts can only result in the government’s agents walking away, brushing off any accountability on the theory that the government is in the right because the government says so.
The credibility of anyone in law enforcement in regard to a LEO-involved shooting is no greater than that of a Negro mammy who tells reporters that her chile was a good boy who could not possibly have done nuffin’.
The government might even attack you while you are surrendering to them. The federal agents on the ground will want the glory that goes with battle, and attacking a surrendering foe is very easy battle. Their bureaucratic handlers will want “justification” for more money, authority, and military hardware. The Jewish-run media will play the story as if the protesters were inciting conflict and ended up being ignominiously defeated.
So remember the risks of surrendering. It won’t necessarily prevent the government from murdering you.
Quote: “They also invested their entire leadership by sending them all into the ambush. Another major mistake.”
They might not have had their leadership priorities fully worked out. It’s possible that they all went because none of them wanted to seem unimportant enough to be left behind.
Getting all the “dogs” to recognize the same master isn’t easy, and White groups have had special difficulty with this. Every one of us has an ego in need of reward, and none of us wants to bow to anyone else, unless it is to someone who has already been accepted by many. Which makes it hard for any White group to become organized.
It also enables our enemies to set us up with fake leaders, simply by picking a good actor and giving him a lot of money. That gambit has lured White rebels to their misfortune many times, and it still works.
And White leaders don’t want to work with each other. They view other White groups as rivals for the limited resource of racist patronage, and they ‘trash talk’ each others’ reputations down. And they even appeal to their enemies for arbitration when things get especially nasty between themselves.
* * *
Source: David Sims