Ugh, it’s a Krug
A FEW DAYS AGO Jessica Krug, a tenured professor at George Washington University, posted a bizarre confession. I’ve excerpted the key bits. The Truth, and the Anti-Black Violence of My Lies (archive.is):
To an escalating degree over my adult life, I have eschewed my lived experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas City under various assumed identities within a Blackness that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness. I have not only claimed these identities as my own when I had absolutely no right to do so — when doing so is the very epitome of violence, of thievery and appropriation, of the myriad ways in which non-Black people continue to use and abuse Black identities and cultures — but I have formed intimate relationships with loving, compassionate people who have trusted and cared for me when I have deserved neither trust nor caring. People have fought together with me and have fought for me, and my continued appropriation of a Black Caribbean identity is not only, in the starkest terms, wrong — unethical, immoral, anti-Black, colonial — but it means that every step I’ve taken has gaslighted those whom I love.
. . .
Mental health issues likely explain why I assumed a false identity initially, as a youth, and why I continued and developed it for so long; the mental health professionals from whom I have been so belatedly seeking help assure me that this is a common response to some of the severe trauma that marked my early childhood and teen years.
. . .
That I claimed belonging with living people and ancestors to whom and for whom my being is always a threat at best and a death sentence at worst.
I am not a culture vulture. I am a culture leech.
. . .
I should absolutely be cancelled. No. I don’t write in passive voice, ever, because I believe we must name power. So. You should absolutely cancel me, and I absolutely cancel myself.
What does that mean?
I don’t know.
. . .
I have built my life on a violent anti-Black lie, and I have lied in every breath I have taken.
There are no words in any language to express the depth of my remorse, but then again: there shouldn’t be. Words are never the point.
. . .
I don’t know how to fix this. I am attempting to lay out a timeline of my deceit to better understand all whom I have violated and how, and to begin to imagine how to restore, to address, to redress… But I can’t fix this.
. . .
To everyone who trusted me, who fought for me, who vouched for me, who loved me, who is feeling shock and betrayal and rage and bone marrow deep hurt and confusion, violation in this world and beyond: I beg you, please, do not question your own judgment or doubt yourself. You were not naive. I was audaciously deceptive. I have a very clear, loud conscience, but I have acted as if I had none. I gaslit you. I begged for your compassion and love for my isolation and loneliness — real and raw feelings, but borne of the avalanche of deceit.
. . .
I have no identity outside of this. I have never developed one. I have to figure out how to be a person that I don’t believe should exist, and how, as that person, to even begin to heal any of the harm that I’ve caused.
No white person, no non-Black person, has the right to claim proximity to or belonging in a Black community by virtue of abuse, trauma, non-acceptance, and non-belonging in a white community. The abuse within and alienation from my birth family and society are no one’s burden but my own, and mine alone to address. Black people and Black communities have no obligation to harbor the refuse of non-Black societies. I have done this. I know it is wrong and I have done this anyway.
Krug admits she’s a liar and that her entire career as a professional Black was an elaborate identity fraud, which makes it difficult to take anything she has ever said or ever will say at face value.
She says she perpetrated her fraud while being fully conscious that it was harmful to others. She claims to feel remorse, but provides no good reason for anyone to believe it. She doesn’t say why she decided to make her announcement, and preemptively shrugs off what she intends to come of it. It seems she was exposed and confronted and wanted to “get ahead of the story”.
She claims she has no identity beyond pretending to be someone she isn’t. This can be understood to include her “lived experience as a white jewish child” rather than contradicting it. It might be amusing to hear her expound on this oxymoronic “White jew” lie, but anyone paying attention should already understand.
The plainest way to put it is that Krug is a Jew who, for whatever reason, decided to pretend not to be. Despite her supposed “mental health issues” she exhibited a keen understanding of racial identity and social psychology, and an irrepressible will to shape the thinking of others. She built a successful career for herself as an anti-White professional intellectual in academia. In all these ways her behavior has been typically Jewy.
Krug did in secret what Jews organized and acting as Jews are doing openly. As one professional Jew put it frankly to tribemates, There Is a Jessica Krug in Every Jew. The problem from that Jew’s point of view is that his tribe isn’t Jewing hard or openly enough. He gets closer than usual to the truth when he writes, “We’d like to think that we can be like everyone else, but we’re not. … The world feels that we are causing them to hate each other, and this is why they hate us”.
Krug’s biggest lie is The Lie, the lie the parasite tells its host, the lie standing behind all the other lies. “The host is the oppressor, the parasite is their victim”, hisses the parasite. The terrible reality is that the host is relatively clueless, whereas the parasite is hyper-aware of who they are and what they’re doing. Krug fittingly describes herself as a leech. Caught lying she simply continues lying, acting as if her main victim has been the Blacks she befriended, allied herself with, and continues to pander to, rather than the Whites she vilifies and continues to incite attacks against. There is no sign that she ever decried Jews or their Jewing, or that she ever will.
Krug says she “gaslighted those whom I love”. Gaslighting is a trendy term, mostly misapplied. Krug however is a specialist, and she uses the term correctly. It specifically has to do with relationships based on lies, the psychological mechanics of fraud, the abuse of trust and its impact. The cure for gaslighting is for the abused to recognize that the abuser is not the friend, lover, or ally they present themselves as, but an enemy.
Speaking of gaslighting, most reporting and commentary in the Jewsmedia aimed at the goyim has gone along with Krug’s charade, deploring the imaginary harm done to Blacks, attributing her behavior to her supposed Whiteness, and limiting any mention of her Jewness to an uncritical echoing of her “White jew” lie.
This has been true even for op-eds signed by the Jewsmedia’s house-broken Blacks. Jessica Krug offers a twisted example of White privilege and Jessica Krug Is Just Another Rachel Dolezal are two versions of the same stupid narrative. The WaPo version is a bit more polished, boiling down and putting the main point in its title. The bitchmedia version spells out the White-washing, baldly describing Krug’s characteristically Jewy Jewing while misidentifying it as the epitome of Whiteness:
Krug, who adopted the moniker Jess La Bombera, wasn’t only satisfied with becoming a tenured professor, publishing a book through a major academic trade press, and being regarded as an expert in African American studies. She also had to become a gatekeeper of Blackness—a moral pillar who determined who was working on behalf of Black people and who needed to be held accountable for not doing enough. “She consistently trashed women of color and questioned their scholarship,” political anthropologist Yarimar Bonilla, who teaches at Hunter College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, tweeted. “She even described my colleague Marisa Fuentes as a ‘slave catcher’ in the introduction to her book. Kind of amazing how white supremacy means she even thought she was better at being a person of color than we were.”
Everything about Krug’s behavior — from her defensiveness and the calculated theft of opportunities from actual Black scholars to her inherent feeling of superiority — screams of whiteness. Her near immediate pivoting to victimhood — everything is in my control, but nothing is — also echoes the whiteness that has allowed white people to colonize lands and then claim to be oppressed within the very nations they pillaged.
. . .
Colorism — a system that privileges lighter-skinned people and other features that signify a proximity to whiteness at the expense of darker-skinned people — becomes a useful weapon for white women who choose to cosplay as Black. Gatekeepers trust light-skinned people to be stewards of their own stories and of Blackness at-large, leaving little room for those darker than them to question their right to Blackness. These conversations devolve quickly from rightful questioning to being perceived as untrusting and envious. White women who’ve studied Blackness enough to emulate it know this and manipulate it — using colorism, though its impact on darker-skinned people, to shield themselves from legitimate inquiry.
. . .
Pretty soon, Kruger will be on the morning show circuit, which she will leverage into a book deal and a documentary — raking in money from the deception itself. It sounds like the best version of being “canceled,” as she declared herself in her Medium post. As Krug rebrands herself — this time as a white woman victimized by a system that racializes people — what becomes of the people she’s harmed? Are they suddenly collateral damage in her quest to declare her right to be Black until it no longer suits her? There are people whose trust she gained, who defended her, and who bought into her lie. How can Krug atone in any meaningful way without recentering herself? She can’t, and she also won’t simply go away because the audacity of whiteness won’t allow her ego to do that either. The burden can only be carried insofar as it benefits her, and when it became too heavy, finally weighing on her moral center or career goals, it became easy to shed the very Blackness she once cloaked herself in as a form of repelling armor. That, to be clear, is the whitest part of it all.
The WaPo op-ed concludes with this whopper:
In 2020 in this country, Whiteness still carries a lot of privilege — including, perhaps, the privilege to get away with pretending to be Black.
That’s right. Whites get all the blame for Jews Jewing Jewily. It’s quite a privilege. And the same switcheroo is used to Jewsplain away Jewy networking at the highest levels of power, from Jeffrey Epstein to Donald Trump. We can expect to see similarly cohencidental networking if and when we ever find out who was responsible for backing and advancing Krug.
The most irksome thing about these sneaky Jew-serving narratives conflating Jews with Whites is how they are complemented by the brazenly Jew-serving narratives portraying Jews as utterly distinct and different from Whites, as the innocent victims of and racial enemies of Whites.
The Krug affair is one of those seemingly silly stories most White people will briefly snigger at and then quickly forget. Unfortunately, it is also emblematic of the current Jewed anti-White regime. Would that the problem were just one wacky Jewess. It isn’t. She is just the tip of the latest, trending phase of Jewing, the “wokeness” inspiring everyone to lash out at White people.
It’s not that pundits are blind to all this Jewing, can’t understand it, or are unable to describe it. Many present themselves as authorities on what’s going on, then very deliberately omit the Jew part. Last week, for example, the Jew Glenn Greenwald was very eager to echo and promote a very serious White-washing of “wokeness”, a “great essay” describing “how white elites are exploiting and weaponizing their own self-serving definitions of ‘racism’”.
It’s yet another example of the “White jew” lie.
The author, Columbia sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, is visibly non-White and describes himself as “a core member of Heterodox Academy”, an alt-Jew cabal promoting “classical liberalism” to the goyim. The essay’s disingenuous title is Who gets to define what’s ‘racist?’
One key insight of the “discursive turn” in social research is how concepts are defined, and by whom, reveals a lot about power relations within a society or culture. These definitions are not just reflections of social dynamics, but can have important socio-political consequences downstream: they can help legitimize or delegitimize individuals, groups and their actions; they can render some things more easily comprehensible and others less so; they can push certain things outside the realm of polite discussion, and introduce new elements into the language game.
The term “racist” is no exception.
In the past, racism primarily denoted overt discrimination, bigotry, or racial animus. Incidents of this nature are far less common and far less accepted than they were in previous decades. Indeed, in contemporary U.S. society, one of the very worst charges that can be leveled against someone — especially a white person — is to accuse them of being racist.
On balance, both of these developments are great.
. . .
Looking at GSS and ANES data, highly-educated whites tend to be more ‘woke’ on racial issuesthan the average black or Hispanic; they tend to perceive much more racism against minorities than most minorities, themselves, report experiencing; they express greater support for diversity than most blacks or Hispanics; they report more favorable attitudes towards people of racial/ ethnic ‘outgroups’ over their ‘ingroup’ – and are the only ethnic or racial group to exhibit such tendencies.
How can this phenomenon be explained?
One approach might be to argue that relatively well-off and highly-educated liberal whites — by virtue of their college education and higher rates of consumption of ‘woke’ content in the media, online, etc. — simply understand the reality and dynamics of racism better than the average black or Hispanic. I would strongly advise against anyone taking a stand on that hill.
What is more plausible is that many whites, in their eagerness to present themselves as advocates for people of color and the cause of antiracism, neglect to actually listen to ordinary black or brown folk about what they find offensive, or what their racial priorities are.
White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities. Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites. Charges of “racism,” for instance, are primarily deployed against the political opponents of upwardly-mobile, highly-educated progressive white people. Even to the point of branding prominent black or brown dissenters as race-traitors (despite the reality that, on average, blacks and Hispanics tend to be significantly more socially conservative and religious than whites).
Gharbi is describing how Jews define “racism” and use it to attack Whites. That would be more obvious if he noted how the same people who define “racism” also define “anti-Semitism”, and how they use that to cancel even non-White goyim. Do “highly-educated liberal whites” really they think and behave as a group? What role do Jews play? How much of this “highly-educated” and “liberal” business is just a disguise for Jews and their Jewing? How many hostile anti-White Krugs are out there posing as White? An honest sociologist might ask questions like this, but as Cuddihy noted, sociology is a sect of Jewing.
One Big Lie of the thoroughly Jewed anti-White regime is that race is entirely a social construct. Another is that it’s really complicated, which is why an army of professional leeches must constantly Jewsplain how non-White is good and White is bad. But then that simple truth falls out of every one of these transracial scandals. What makes these scandals scandalous is the fact that race is a heritable, genetic, biological trait. And despite the Jew lies, even the most racially mixed and least intelligent hominins instinctively grasp that truth.
* * *
Source: Age of Treason