Paul Krugman. Official WH Photo by Adam Schultz.

1,519 words

Several days ago, Jewish economist and former New York Times columnist Paul Krugman posted a six-minute video of himself in which he expounded upon his hatred of Donald Trump and everything MAGA. At first, he seemed most appalled by Trump’s response to various musical artists who recently pulled out of this summer’s Great American State Fair concert in Washington, DC. This concert, which is scheduled for later this month, is organized by Trump’s own Freedom 250 Project. With typical Trumpian bombast, the Donald claimed that he himself would headline the event (since he is the “Number One Attraction anywhere in the World” and “gets much larger audiences than Elvis in his prime”) while dismissing the withdrawing acts as “third rate.”

Nothing new here, and nothing terribly interesting. Just Trump being Trump. Krugman then uses this as a springboard to impugn Trump’s sanity. He also hints darkly about all the billionaires who support him and the “hugely unequal power, hugely unequal wealth” which enabled him to ascend to the White House. Nothing new here either. Just Krugman, vicious partisan toad that he is, whipping up hatred by relying on the ignorance of his viewers—as if the Democrats have no billionaires supporting them and Joe Biden hadn’t been senile while in office from 2021 to 2025.

What is interesting, however, is how Krugman decided to end his screed. He wishes for nothing less than the de-MAGAfication of the United States:

Obviously, we need to defang Trump as much as possible and make sure that neither he nor anybody who follows in his footsteps has power after the next two elections. But beyond that, we really need to do a thorough purging of the United States. We need a de-MAGAfication. And I’m not going over the top by using a word that’s very similar to the de-Nazification that we pursued successfully after World War II in Germany.

According to William Henry Chamberlin in his 1950 work America’s Second Crusade, de-Nazification in Germany immediately after the Second World War was nothing more than an “inquisitional purge.” Large numbers of ordinary Germans were beaten and tortured during questioning, and then imprisoned because they may have joined the Nazi Party a decade earlier in order to further their careers.

Writes Thomas Goodrich in his 2010 work Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944 – 1947:

Not surprisingly, with beatings, rape, torture, and death facing them, few victims failed to “confess” and most gladly inked their name to any scrap of paper shown them. Some . . . tried to resist. Such recalcitrance was almost always of short duration, however. Generally, after enduring blackened eyes, broken bones, electric shock to the breasts—or, in the case of men, smashed testicles—only those who died during torture failed to sign confessions.

Alone, surrounded by sadistic hate, utterly bereft of law, many victims understandably escaped by taking their own lives.

So is this what Paul Krugman wants to do to Trump supporters? He doesn’t clarify, and he certainly hasn’t apologized or walked back any of what he said. So we have to assume yes, the man wants to give Americans the business with the rack and thumbscrews over that favorable Facebook post they made about The Apprentice in 2013.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Is America Doomed? here.

There are two levels of Hell here. First, Krugman assumes the Germans deserved such treatment after the war. Secondly, he believes that modern-day Americans deserve the same treatment simply because they voted for Trump. This means that in Paul Krugman’s frazzled mind, Trump supporters may as well be Nazis—that is, the enemy in the most concrete sense—even though they’ve committed no Shoah and their great orange leader wages war in the Middle East on behalf of the Jewish Ethnostate of Israel.

In the first case, Krugman is wrong because he refuses to the do the very simple math. Nazis were the enemies of Bolsheviks, and Bolsheviks had murdered tens of millions prior to the Second World War. Nothing as remotely enormous could be pinned on the Germans during the same period. Yes, the Germans cracked down on the Left in the early years of Hitler’s chancellorship—the tune of 100,000 arrested, imprisoned, or executed, according to the Leftists themselves. This is child’s play in comparison. And yes, the Germans committed mass atrocities during the war, but so did the Allies. That Krugman will crow over the success of de-Nazification in Germany after the war when there was a much greater evil afoot in the form of America’s ally, the Soviet Union, indicates either his ignorance of history or his perverse willingness to abide a greater evil in order to stamp out a lesser one.

This leads us to our second layer of Krugman Hell. If Bolshevism is worse than Nazism, then why isn’t Paul Krugman calling for a concurrent de-Bolshevization of America? Why wasn’t he calling to defang Joe Biden when his administration was cracking down on peaceful J6 protesters or COVID dissidents while making a complete mockery of American borders? Donald Trump is by all accounts less totalitarian towards law-abiding American citizens than was Joe Biden. If Krugman were principled, he would have been just as harsh, if not harsher, on Biden than he is on Trump. The question then arises: why is Krugman so unprincipled?

The answer, of course, is that he supports Bolshevism. Maybe not as an economic model per se (Grok describes Krugman as a “center-left Keynesian”), but definitely as a wartime measure against people he doesn’t like. And for people like Krugman, the Second World War never ended. Despite whatever he has written in the past, there is no other way to interpret his recent video. How else can we interpret the man’s fervent wish for a “thorough purging of the United States?” How else are we going to interpret his wish for de-MAGAification when he invokes the inherently violent de-Nazification to describe it?

And whom does Paul Krugman not like?

He doesn’t say, but I have to presume it is American whites. Here’s how Grok answered the question “Has Paul Krugman ever said anything anti-white?”:

No, Paul Krugman has not said anything that qualifies as straightforwardly “anti-white” in the sense of expressing racial hatred, calling for harm against white people, or denying their equal rights. However, he has written extensively in ways that many interpret as racially charged or condescending toward white Americans—particularly white working-class, rural, and conservative voters.

Key examples of his rhetoric:

• • “The Angry White Male Caucus” (2018 NYT column): Krugman discussed Brett Kavanaugh hearings and argued that “white male rage” stems from fear of losing traditional privilege in a changing country. He portrayed resentment among white men (including elites) as driven by status anxiety rather than legitimate grievances.
  • White rural voters: He has repeatedly highlighted books and themes like “White Rural Rage” (endorsing its thesis that rural white voters pose a threat to democracy due to backlash against economic/cultural change). He calls their political behavior “baffling” and driven more by racism than economics.
  • Trump support: Krugman has argued that support for Donald Trump among whites is “mostly about race,” downplaying economic anxiety as a cover for racial resentment. He has linked lower-income white voting patterns to opposition to welfare perceived as benefiting non-whites.
  • Other recurring themes: References to “white privilege,” declining “whiteness” in demographics, and criticism of white working-class cultural or family changes (while attributing root causes to economics). He often frames conservative white voters as motivated by racism, status loss, or “resentment.”

Here is how Grok concludes its answer to the question “Has Paul Krugman ever written anything that is pro-white?”

Krugman writes as a center-left liberal who views U.S. politics through lenses of class, inequality, and racial dynamics (often emphasizing white racism or privilege as explanatory factors). There are no columns praising white contributions, defending white identity against discrimination, opposing anti-white bias, or suggesting policies targeted at benefiting whites as a group. Claims of “pro-white” content do not appear in searches of his NYT columns, books (The Conscience of a Liberal, etc.), or Substack.

In short: His record shows consistent race-conscious criticism of white political and cultural patterns, aligned with progressive norms. He does not promote whiteness positively.

Of course, Krugman cannot openly admit that he hates white people; if he did he would most likely catch more flak than he cares to take. Further, I suspect he doesn’t hate white people at all—as long as they abide by two conditions: 1) they renounce their racial interests, and 2) they remain under his thumb where they belong. This however raises the following question: Does Krugman’s Jewishness have anything to do with his apparent anti-white animus? We must presume so given Krugman’s stated desire to use Bolshevik tactics to destroy Trump and his supporters as well as the long and bloody link between Jews and Bolshevism during the past century and a half.

Since Donald Trump threatens both of these conditions he must be purged according to Paul Krugman. And this must be done in a way that Jewish Bolsheviks of the past would approve—Soviet style and on a mass scale.