Georgetown University Professor Personifies the JQ

When I first saw the story on Buzzfeed about Richard Spencer being verbally accosted by a hostile SJW in an Alexandria gym, and subsequently having his gym membership terminated, I was disgusted but not exactly surprised.  Then, when I read more about the details of the incident, I was somewhat taken aback by the sheer level of brazen rudeness and unfairness on display.  But a deeper investigation of the individual involved uncovered some connections which truly shook me up, but which nevertheless serve as a perfect encapsulation of the entire JQ in a single case study.

At first, I merely thought:  poor Richard, he must have unluckily happened across a particularly obnoxious representative of the SJW phenomenon.  All the trademarks were there:  the initiating of attacks while simultaneously posturing as a defender of victims, the feminist double-standard of physically confronting a man while simultaneously calling him cowardly for not using violence against women, claiming the right to political space and free speech while denying that right to others, bullying in the name of anti-bullying, extreme rudeness and self-righteousness, arrogance and bourgeois entitlement.  The defining highlight came with the SJW’s own Tumblr post bragging about the incident, a crowning example of virtue signaling written in that signature leftist blend of pretentious, professorial rhetoric and crude sexual obscenity.  And naturally in this instance corporate America, as it always does, deprived the white male of rights while caving in completely to the screeching demands of politically correct unreason.

As the day went on, my sense of injustice grew as I watched the mainstream media pick up the story with relish:  headline after headline proclaiming how “white nationalist” Richard Spencer was “banned from gym after confrontation,” “banned after woman confronts him for being a Neo-Nazi,” “kicked out of gym after being identified as a white nationalist,” and so on.  No mention of the fact that Spencer was the victim, no credit given to him for his calm and measured response or the enormous restraint he displayed under the circumstances, not one word about the injustice done to an innocent man kicked out of an establishment for simply being verbally assaulted while minding his own business, when he did not even respond in kind.  This was worse than punishing the innocent with the guilty:  this was rewarding the guilty while punishing the innocent.  And the implication was crystal clear:  if you’re even accused of being a white nationalist, you can be banned from any corporate space in America.  And since 21st-century America is almost entirely owned by large corporations, with little to no public space remaining either in the streets or on the web, this amounts to a regime of leftist-capitalist control as oppressive as the former Stasi tyranny over East Germany.

It was only later in the day I read that the particular SJW involved, Georgetown University Professor C. Christine Fair, was Jewish.  This did not take long for anyone to deduce, as she self-identified as such using the Alt Right-invented “echo” symbol on Twitter.  Then her obnoxious behavior made more sense to me, especially employing the Tim Wise-like trick of claiming to attack Spencer “as a fellow white person.”  I remembered Voltaire’s quote about the Jewish people, that they were “cringing in misfortune, and insolent in prosperity.”  Christine Fair, as is so often the case, managed to be both cringing and insolent at the same time.  Her legalistic appeal to “corporate,” without regard to justice or fairness, was typical of the Hebraic mindset.  And of course, her unlovely visage was like a cartoon out of a Third Reich children’s book.

Later that evening, I began to read more about her, and that it was only then the full hideousness of her character truly came into view.  C. Christine Fair, according to her own website, is a highly credentialed academic with Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, formerly a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation, a political officer with the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan in Kabul, and a Senior Fellow at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.  She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, has testified many times before Congress on matters of terrorism and foreign policy, and is “a frequent commentator on television and radio including the CBS, BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, Voice of America, Fox, Reuters, NPR… she has given extensive interviews to journalists with the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, Businessweek, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe and other print media outlets.”

It seems Dr. Fair is not simply an SJW, not even an especially vile SJW who merely “happens to be Jewish,” but is, in fact, a major intellectual advocate of Zionist imperialism and war crimes, from the deepest bowels of the Washington establishment.  Her special area of academic expertise is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, that deeply conservative authoritarian nationalist state in South Asia which, incidentally, still refuses to recognize the State of Israel.  And it also seems Dr. Fair’s entire career has been dedicated, not merely to “studying” Pakistan, but to doing everything possible to undermine the security of the Pakistani nation, right up to the point of justifying drone strikes against civilians.

The State of Pakistan itself is an interesting study in political incorrectness.  This country of 200 million is severely out of step with the prevailing liberal-capitalist global world order, not only for its extreme nationalism but also for its socially conservative religious culture.  The ruling military class of Pakistan descended from the warrior race which once built the Mughal Empire, have incorporated Islam into their nationalist worldview in a way that would be familiar to many in the Alt-Right, but totally alien to any advocate of secular humanist individualism.  Pakistan is also strategically firmly in the Russian-Iran axis, which does nothing further to endear it to the champions of globalist neoliberalism.  A list of Christine Fair’s most recent articles in Foreign Affairs magazine includes “The Pakistani Military’s New Coup Playbook:  Democracy Is Still on a Leash in Islamabad,” and “Pakistan’s Middle-Class Extremists:  Why Development Aid Won’t Solve Radicalism.”  A quick search for her name on YouTube reveals countless examples of her single-minded quest to undermine the position of the Pakistani military and weaken the country’s position internationally.  Reading between the lines, it’s easy to spot all the characteristic methods of Jewish subversion which have suffused the American foreign policy establishment since the days when Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays ran the Committee on Public Information during the First World War:  making the world safe for “democracy,” fighting “extremism,” and “militarism” in the name of “peace.”

This combination of extreme social liberalism at home, combined with murderous interventionism abroad, only makes sense if one understands the biological nature of the Jewish problem.  For a Jew such as Christine Fair, these are not moral positions taken from the point of view of abstract ethical principles, but particularist tribal interests wrapped up in universalist platitudes as a defense mechanism.  Anywhere in the world, traditionalism, martial values, strong gender roles, nationalism, authority, hierarchy and religious faith are qualities which strengthen group ties and fortify communities against threats from outside and infiltration from within.  George Soros’ “open society” is nothing but a way to soften up strong, healthy societies for domination by Jewish finance capital.  It is here that the seemingly contradictory impulses of “compassionate” Social Justice Warriorism and ruthless Neoconservative warmongering come together in perfect harmony.  The rule is:  that which makes it easier for the Jews to dominate a society, is good.  That which makes it harder for Jews to dominate is bad.  One day it might be protesting microaggressions, the next it might be remotely blowing up Pakistani children from the air.

As always, the seemingly extreme double standard of this attitude, which is astonishing and incomprehensible to the natural instincts of settled, creative peoples, is perfectly defined by the Yiddish word chutzpah, famously defined by Leo Rosten as “gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible ‘guts’, presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to…. that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.”  This uniquely Jewish trait was a key survival mechanism adopted as the weak and tiny Jewish tribe moved as wandering merchants and nomads throughout the ancient world and is stamped indelibly on the race.  Dr. Christine Fair, then, was only acting within the oldest traditions and the biological evolution of her type when she brazenly attacked the Anglo-Saxon Richard Spencer in a city built by Anglo-Saxons merely for quietly and unobtrusively keeping to himself – the same way she, as a foreign interloper, audaciously challenges the right of the Pakistani army to defend its own interests.

There is no doubt this woman would justify drone strikes against white children in Europe or America just as easily.  There is no moral compass here in the traditional sense, only the most narrow tribal interests operating on a crude reptilian level, merely dressed up in the trappings of academia and intellectualism.  For such a specimen, the ancient language of the Anglo-Saxon race, or our great institutions of higher learning in the West, are but methods of camouflage to be superficially mimicked in order to advance the singular agenda of Jewish domination and control.  The same goes for “hate speech” laws, Tumblr blogs, and drones firing missiles into remote villages.  There is no more opportunity for rational debate and intellectual argument with such a creature than there would be in trying to convince any mindless parasitoid that it shouldn’t kill its host.

But it is important to remember:  this is who is shaping the foreign policy of the United States.  If Richard Spencer could randomly bump into such a vile individual by going to an Alexandria gym, how many more similar characters are swirling around the Washington D.C. swamp, stalking the halls of power and whispering in the ears of Senators?  How many of the brave men and women of our race who serve in the armed forces, from places like Kentucky or West Virginia – or the military elite who form our young officer corps at West Point – know that the missions on which they serve, and for which they are expected to give their lives, are being set and determined by the scheming Christine Fairs of the world?

Knowing what she thinks about Trump supporters, what she thinks of white masculinity, her complete intolerance of political dissidence and her total disregard for human life – it is only natural to assume that if the traditional people of Appalachia, or any other region of heartland America, were to say enough with the removal of statues, the forced demographic replacement, the banning of symbols of heritage and free speech, the legal harassment and abuse of politically incorrect opinions – and woke themselves to the point of declaring some form of political independence from this liberal-capitalist globalist tyranny, that Christine Fair would be advocating drone strikes against American small towns and hamlets.  The same strong white men who built the civilization this parasite now inhabits, who erected the mighty neoclassical state architecture of the city in which she dwells, who have given their lives to secure this land and territory on which she treads, would have their families blown to bits by drones if this vile woman had her way.

This is why it is so critical to study this case, to understand the nature of the enemy we’re up against.  This is not simply a matter of denying a man the right to mind his own business and not be accosted in public for his political opinions.  This is a life or death struggle for survival against a racial enemy which has no conception of fairness, justice, or the value of human life.  It starts with the denial of the basic right to use a gym, and it ends with death by technological terror from the skies.