Their ABC: Interviewing terrorists and cover-ups

4

Richard B Riddick

It’s very important that the media do not give a platform to violent extremists, particularly ones who carry out violence for political purposes and would use the platform to extend their intimidation.

To whom am I referring?

The ABC of course, who in their recent gushing coverage of “Redneck Revolt” managed to portray this group of left-wing fanatics as a natural and righteous reaction to the election of Donald Trump and the rise of the Alt-right.

I believe in free speech, so I am actually more than happy for these would be class revolutionaries to go on the record with their views, all the better to hoist them on their own petards.

However what I don’t like is the fact that my taxes go to literal agitprop like the following:

It shouldn’t need to be said, but the above picture isn’t a counter demonstrator participating in the American democratic process, it’s a man committing assault with a deadly weapon on a person exercising their 1st amendment rights.

When you are trying to intimidate others into not exercising their right to political expression, you are a terrorist. The literal definition of terrorism is violence for a political purpose.

I digress.

Back to the Australian media.

So, recently the media, the blue-tick mark cultural influencers and the social media twits have all gone into a fit of rage over Blair Cottrell being interviewed. I have covered most of my thoughts about Blair specifically in this piece, however it did get me thinking when I was reading the ABC Antifa piece about the significance of the primary interviewee, Dwayne Dixon.

Excerpts from the ABC piece are as follows:

“Softly-spoken and slight of build, Mr Dixon is a vegan who spends his days lecturing in anthropology at a local university.

“Today he’s preparing for the moment he may raise a deadly weapon on the streets of a US city.

“Guns are a tool,” he says between bursts of crackling gunfire.

“You’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

….

“Mr Dixon, 45, is a member of the far-left group Redneck Revolt, whose chapters have multiplied in the past year from just a handful to over 30 across the United States, they claim.”

….

“I think for us having access to weapons and having the skill and competency with them … allows us to at least consider that among a diversity of possible tactics,” Mr Dixon says.

“It doesn’t mean that they’re going to be used all the time, but recognising the moment we’re in, when real white terrorist violence is a fact of American life.

“I wish we didn’t have them, didn’t need them, but I think a wise deterrent is not something to scorn.

“None of us think about firearms in a cavalier way,” Mr Dixon insists, before heading back to the firing line to help his friends reload their guns.”

“Redneck Revolt had their guns in Charlottesville but never fired them.”

I was contemplating the implicit escalation inherent in this man’s language and what “diversity of possible tactics” might mean, when I came across the following story:

Armed Antifa PROFESSOR Admits to Chasing Charlottesville Driver With Rifle BEFORE DEADLY CRASH!

“Dwayne Dixon, a University of North Carolina anthropology professor and leader of the armed Antifa group Redneck Revolt, has admitted to chasing James Alex Fields Jr. with a rifle just before he drove into a group of protesters — killing Heather Heyer.”

“This new revelation adds some insight into what was happening in the moments leading up to the fatal incident.

“In a Facebook post by Dixon on January 7, obtained by the Gateway Pundit, he wrote:

“I take perverse pleasure in having carried this Spike’s lower in the defense of Justice Park on August 12th. I used this rifle to chase off James Fields from our block of 4th St before he attacked the marchers to the south. Spike’s needs a good lesson in ethics and antifascism.”

The Aussie media is tearing itself apart over interviewing Blair Cottrell, but they literally interviewed a man who admits to “chasing off” James Fields just prior to his involvement in the car crash that killed Heather Heyer.

At the bottom of this piece is the XYZ coverage of the Charlottesville crash incident, I implore you to re-read it in light of this information, but I will summarize, at the time we raised the possibility that James Alex Fields was not a murderer.

Primarily because that implied intent, and if he intended to kill enemies of the Alt-Right he could’ve done so more effectively by bringing a firearm or crashing his car into the crowd itself proper and not the car in front of him.

A key event in the video footage shows a man hitting the back of Fields’ car with a metal bat.

It was the contention of the initial XYZ piece that perhaps the sound of the man attacking the back of James’ car startled him into accelerating down the street, therefore causing the car crash. However given that we now know from Dwayne Dixon’s Facebook, that he used his rifle to scare off James Fields immediately before the crash, and specifically that he scared him off from a block on Fourth Street, and the crash where Heather Heyer died occurred at the mall on Water and Fourth streets.

Here is my updated theory:

  1. James Fields was leaving in his automobile after participating in the Unite the Right rally.
  2. James Fields turned onto a street whereby he was confronted with the Redneck Revolt, Dwayne Dixon recognized Fields as a member of the alt-right due to hair cut/clothing and “chased him off” with a rifle, perhaps by pointing it at him or otherwise menacing him (we know no gunfire occurred).
  3. James, presumably very nervous at this point (after the menacing of Redneck revolt and spending most of the day at the Alt-Right shield wall) turned Southwards onto 4th street.
  4. He can see ahead of him a large crowd of people who are obviously not Alt-right.
  5. As he progresses up the street he hears a loud bang in his own vehicle (the man striking his vehicle from the outside with the bat, likely loudly breaking the tail light).

Is it possible that James thinks he has been fired on? Is it possible that he accelerated out of fear?

This new revelation is just further proof to me that James didn’t intend to kill anyone that day. He might be guilty of gross negligence whilst panicking, but that certainly doesn’t fit the narrative the Leftist media have constructed of a murderous right winger.

In any event, surely it should raise some eyebrows that the ABC thinks giving a platform to a man who openly brags about intimidating his political enemies with firearms?

Maybe not though, it is after all, their ABC.

Previous XYZ piece on James Alex Fields

Twenty year old James Alex Fields was the driver of the Challenger involved in the crash that killed Heather Heyer and injured others, he has been denied bail and charged with second degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count related to leaving the scene.

The media has interviewed his former teachers and class mates and ascertained that James held many Alt-Right and Nazi views and sympathies.

The various media reports were essentially “a car driven by a Nazi has killed one and injured others, before fleeing the scene”.

Now I’m not contending that the facts don’t support the above media report. The evidence is that James Fields does hold those views and he certainly was the driver of the Challenger when it rammed two vehicles into a crowd of protestors. The problem is that the implicit assumptions being made by the media or by the rest of society to fill in blanks around the facts are at best negligent and at worst corruptly malicious.

Firstly, it seems many commentators are saying that the crash was the intention of James and even premeditated based on a quote from Charlottesville police chief Al Thomas:

“The premeditated violence that our community experienced today was completely unacceptable.”

It is my view that the Police chief was talking more generally about violence at the Unite the Right rally because it seems unlikely that the Police had established already that James had planned to carry out the car crash. Further, even if they had established this, it seems unlikely that they would say this publicly and potentially influence the future jurors before James’ trial.

The idea that James planned this only makes sense if the evidence is that James is a literal idiot. If he sought to kill people opposed to the Alt-right and he planned to do so before attending the rally, why did he decide to do so via a method that was inefficient and left him easily exposed to retaliation? Why did he not use a firearm or a bomb? Either James is literally so stupid that he was unable to realise that a gun or bomb would have allowed him to kill more people more efficiently with less risk to himself, or he didn’t pre-plan the attack prior to the event.

Therefore, assuming James isn’t a literal idiot, he did not premeditate the crash before the event.

Did he intend the crash though? Was he so infuriated by what he saw on the day of the Rally that he decided that the counter-protestors needed to be killed with whatever means were available to him at that time? That’s possible I suppose, it’s even more compelling if the media are constantly shoving stories in your face saying that he was a Nazi or that he threatened his mum with knife when he was 13 or 14. Of course it’s equally possible that he was just a deeply troubled kid, given that he grew up without a father due to a drunk driver.

Let’s go to the video footage though and assess the facts.

Video 1:

Video 2:

So in the first video, at the very beginning, literally the first few seconds while the car and James are still a fair way from the crowd and cars that are eventually to be struck, there is an impact sound and what sounds like tyres spinning. James and his Challenger continue further down the street before a man on the street attacks the backside of the Challenger as it passes him with some sort of club or bat, then the crash occurs.

The second video shows the challenger ramming another car, it’s this second car that pushes a third car that actually impacts the crowd. It doesn’t appear that there is anyone between the challenger and the rammed car.

So what do these facts mean?

If you believe that James intended to crash to kill the protestors, you are also implying that he was too stupid or stricken with rage to think of of mounting the curb to avoid the slow moving car in front of him, despite the fact that doing so would have meant hitting a large mass of people, and therefore more fatalities and causalities.

My view is that James did not intend to crash his car and kill counter-protestors at all that day.

Rather I believe that the impact and tyre spinning that occurs at the beginning of the first video is the aftermath of something striking James’ Challlenger, and his rapidly accelerating briefly, hence the tyre spin. Whether it was the sound of something striking the Challenger heard by James in the cab that panicked him into accelerating, or he was actively seeking escape is unclear. Then further down the street and crucially before the crash, James’ Challenger is hit on the backside by the man with club/bat (0.03 in the first video).

Interestingly, this man who attacks the car does so on very little notice, that is, James’ car has only been in his view for a very short time before he decides to attack it on the way past, barely a couple of seconds. My view is that this man has seen that James car was attacked further up the street and decided to do so as well, or that he has looked into the front window of the Challenger and seen that James is wearing a white polo or has a haircut like all the Alt-Right rally participants do, and has decided to attack the car.

In either case, James has now been attacked twice (if you accept that the first sound was an attack) or that he has been attacked at least once (which we know for an absolute fact) and is now hemmed in on the street. He also knows that he has been attacked on the basis that people outside the car have identified him as being an Alt-Right rally participant and in front of him down the street is an entire crowd of people anti the Alt-right who have weapons.

The above image is a meme that is circulating, it shows the moment of the attack caught on video at 0.03, we can see from the position of the street signs in each photo, that James was braking before his car was struck.

This to me is further proof that James was not intending to crash into anyone, why would you brake if you were intending to maximise damage to your victims?

My view is that after the bat/club attack, James panics and accelerates rapidly, given that no-one appeared to be caught between the Challenger and the slow/stationary car, it stands to reason that there was actually no one in front of James when he began his acceleration. Once again affirming that James was seeking to escape, not kill.

Video 3:

Video 4:

The above videos show the crash occurring from the street and from drone coverage above, we can see that the vehicles that actually hit the crowd are the two vehicles pushed by James’ Challenger.

These two vehicles would both have been in low gears edging slowly through the crowd, whilst counter protestors walked around and infront of them, hence why the impact of James’ Challenger pushed them both so far so rapidly. The cars weren’t parked or braking, and due to being in first gear wouldn’t have resisted the forward movement of the impact of James’ Challenger at all.

Given that a Dodge Challenger is a notoriously powerful car and that it’s possible (and in my opinion very likely) that in James’ panic he pushed the pedal to the floor for a few brief seconds after the bat attack, it’s not surprising that the impact had the effect it did.

So what does this mean? it means that James isn’t a murderer and is not guilty of malicious harming due to lack of intent. Furthermore, if James can prove that he personally had a reasonable fear of being stuck in his car whilst being attacked, his attempts to escape no matter how extreme in the aftermath are not criminally chargeable. They are criminally chargeable though if it can be proved that it was unreasonable for him to attempt the method he chose, which may result in him being guilty of manslaughter and reckless negligence causing harm. But given he had already been attacked in his own vehicle on the street, and he is likely to have witnessed violence earlier in the day at the Rally, it stands to reason he had a reasonable fear of being murdered or harmed given the numbers of potential enemies and their armaments. Once again, look at the below video after the crash, many of the people who rush in to attack his car had weapons so this was not an unrealistic fear.

Furthermore, James’ charge of fleeing the scene would be thrown out immediately as James can easily prove that he fled for fear of being pulled out of his car and lynched by an angry mob who were unlikely to listen to any explanation he might offer.

Needless to say “Nazi’s panicked attempts to escape attacks cause the death of one and multiple injuries” is certainly not a headline that the media wants to run with, as they don’t want anyone to question whether James’ actions could be justified.

All of this evidence and reasoning that I have laid out here will come into the public discourse during the trial and will be used to establish reasonable doubt, and James will be released or at least not found guilty of having intent, only of negligence. Assuming of course James can still get a fair trial in today’s America.

At that point the Left will have a moment of extreme mental anguish, when their narrative of James being an”evil Nazi killer” dissolves to be replaced by “a panicked man fleeing a car accident after being assaulted”. In this moment lies the greatest risk; instead of reflecting on why their bias and assumptions led them to a deeply incorrect conclusion not supported by facts, they will say that the system is rigged and that this was not justice.

Given that they already believe a literal Nazi (Trump) is in the White House, and their rhetoric for over 50 years is that the system is perpetuated and maintained by evil whites who are in power, they will instead step up their revolutionary and violent efforts.

This incident and its fallout is but another another nail in the coffin of America’s modern political discourse, and I fear that we are rapidly approaching the point of no return.