The Jewish Question (JQ) thread


This morning I read an article on parenting and I was appalled by the negative sentiment to parents, abusive parents, parents with no attention for kids, parents who are neglecting, it's so 1 directional that the parent needs to turn the anger inward, be ashamed and improve their actions (for the benefit of the kid).

It felt this is so familiar, I have seen this before.

Turns out there is a whole industry called developmental psychology. A majority Jewish industry that pushing this narrative. An industry that makes kids the central point of existence in a very scary way.

In modern culture kids are constantly asked what they would like to do, what they would like to eat, where they want to go for vacation, what they like in school, who they like in school, which sport they want to do, what they want to become, if they feel good.

As a contrast, all these questions are totally incomprehensible for the generation of my grandfather. They adapted as kids and if they didn't listen, they got a literal smack to get them in line.

In modern families, the parents are servants to the kids, which has been pushed since the 1930s and 1940s victimizing children and blaming parents for all the problems adults face later in life. Take up any modern magazine and parents are blamed for all the bad. This might also be another factor in the low birth rates we are seeing.

Instead of honor your parents, it's blame your parents today.

This form of neuroticism in parents to do good has been pushed by mostly Jewish psychologists, psychoanalists, psychiatrists and media.

"All about the kids"

Below a list with the most influential developmental "psychologists". This whole field of child and developmental psychology and psychiatry is Jewish (with some exceptions). I have been going through the rabbit hole yesterday, and literally anyone I looked into of the well known developmental / child psychologists / psychiatrists are Jewish of which many adopted European names.

It's a total subversion to a normal healthy family relationship, where a man listens to god, the wife listen to the man and the kids to the mother.
  • Leo Kanner - In 1943, Kanner published his landmark paper Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact, describing 11 children who were highly intelligent but displayed "a powerful desire for aloneness"
  • On 1945 Rene Spitsz raise concerns about negative impact of institutional life on children.
  • Howard Earl Gardner, American developmental psychologist
  • Bronfenbrenner on Ecological systems theory
  • Sigmund Freud
  • Erik Erikson on stages of psychosocial development
  • Alice Miller, writer of drama of the gifted child
All Jews.

To any young parents please don't listen to these quacks, who have been institutionalized nowadays. Be careful what they feed you and you feed your kids. Would you trust your kids around them? I wouldn't.

Even though this is not new to me, I just keep discovering more, also this. It's sickening how deeply rotten our modern culture is, how controlled it is.

Trust your gut and have faith in God and wish you blessed holy week.
Got an almost 3 month old, up on the middle of night to feed him and put him back to sleep. What you're saying is eye opening but not surprising. It's a form of idolatry or inversion to put your child above your wife. I've even told my wife I love her more than the baby because it's true. We were joined in a sacramental union which was consummated, therefore we are one flesh, whereas our son is begotten of our flesh.

I think this misunderstanding is one of the reasons my wife's and my parents ended up getting divorced. They had limited time and resources and gave what little they had to us, the children, which is akin to prioritizing food and hotel services to the passengers of the Titanic, instead of watchmen, navigators, and engineers. Also probably why so many children blame themselves for their parents' divorce.


Gold Member


Orthodox Catechumen
Israeli police once again raiding the Al-Aqsa mosque, using tear gas and stun grenades and injuring 150 Palestinians. This is on top of the latest bombings by the Israeli military on Gaza. Comments sections are calling out the double standard in how Russia is demonized immediately while Israel has been getting away with their violence for decades



Gold Member
I want to pay my respects to the Government of Canada's recent decision to criminalize Holocaust denial (while ignoring a 1992 Supreme Court decision that struck down laws against Holocaust denial as unconstitutional :rolleyes:). What better way than to include a 2017 article which criticizes the harassment of Holocaust deniers:

The (Chosen) People vs. Ernst Zundel

David Cole

In the forty-year battle between Ernst Zundel and the Jews, I think we can finally declare a winner. Hold on to your hats, folks, because the end result is a real shocker. In Harry Caray voice: “Jews win! Jews win!

Zundel, for those of you who don't know, is a 78-year-old Holocaust denier and Hitler-lover. And when I say Hitler-lover, I'm not using the term the way leftists do when referring to anyone slightly to the right of the Weather Underground. The living room of Zundel’s former home in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., is adorned with a painting of Hitler and Zundel hugging like father and son. Now, that’s Hitler-lovin”! Zundel sincerely believes Der Fuhrer got a bum rap. How could this dog-loving, nonsmoking vegetarian have killed anyone? Zundel has made it his life’s goal to rehabilitate Hitler’s image. It’s a fool’s quest. In a rational world, there would never have been a reason for Ernst Zundel to be the topic of a column in The Washington Post by one of the nation’s finest constitutional scholars. Indeed, the very suggestion of such a thing would be laughable. But it happened, and if Zundel’s legal travails are important enough to be examined by the WaPo‘s Prof. Eugene Volokh, they're certainly important enough for this column.

But before we get to today’s paper, let’s take a look at yesterday’s news.

German-born Ernst Zundel immigrated to Canada when he was a teenager. A graphic artist by profession, the adult Zundel spent several decades buzzing around Ontario as a mostly ignored political gadfly, battling “negative stereotypes and discrimination” against German immigrants (in other words, he was an SJW). In the 1970s, it was revealed that this SJW was actually an SSJW when a local reporter exposed Zundel’s true passion: publishing pamphlets that praised Hitler and denied the Holocaust.

So, what to do with a guy churning out dime-store Hitler porn, back in the days when there was no internet to allow the neighborhood kook to spread his ideas beyond his own little mailing list? In a sane country, such a man would be ignored. But when it comes to free speech, Canada is about as sane as its favorite immigrant, Vince Li. Canada, egged on incessantly by Canadian Jewish organizations, decided that the best way to deal with the Zundel menace was to give it international publicity, and to give Zundel an unheard-of gift: the ability to grill Holocaust historians and survivors on the witness stand, forcing them, under oath, to cop to errors, omissions, and exaggerations.

Take a moment to wrap your head around that. Canadian authorities and Jewish groups thought Zundel was such a menace, they gave him a one-of-a-kind opportunity to spread his theories and humiliate his opponents.

My Vince Li comparison doesn't sound so far-fetched now, does it?

Twice in the 1980s, the Canucks put Zundel on trial for spreading “false news.” This, as much as anything else, is what put Holocaust denial on the map. As I wrote in my book, in a section titled “Blame Canada,”

The Zundel team was able to grill Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, who was forced to admit, under cross-examination, that there had never been a plan for what he called the policy of the extermination of the Jews. He was forced to admit that he had never physically studied the remains of the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz or Majdanek. He admitted that Holocaust revisionism aids historians by challenging their beliefs and bringing about the discovery of new information, and, most startlingly, he admitted the existence of a reliable Nazi document stating that Hitler had decided to put off any decision about the “final solution” until after the war.
Auschwitz survivor Arnold Friedman was forced to confess that he had never seen any gas chambers at Auschwitz, and that the stories he wrote about were based on rumors that others had told him. And famed Auschwitz survivor and escapee Rudolf Vrba admitted on the stand that his account of what he saw at Auschwitz was actually “an artistic picture,” not factual evidence. His “eyewitness testimony” regarding the gas chamber? “It’s what I heard it might look like.”
Zundel was convicted, but his conviction was overturned on appeal. So guess what? The damn puckheads put him on trial again! Both Zundel trials were breathlessly covered by the Canadian and international press. In the end, Zundel won out. His second conviction was overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court (and the “false news” law was declared unconstitutional). Zundel was not only free but also an international celebrity. A hated one, to be sure. But a celeb all the same.

Following Zundel’s courtroom victory, Canadian Jewish organizations continued to press the government to find some other way to shut him up. As Zundel had landed only immigrant status in Canada (his attempts to become a citizen had been repeatedly shot down over the years), he decided to throw in the towel and move to the States to live with his equally nutty wife, Ingrid, an American citizen. During this time, the German government, egged on by (wait for it) Jewish organizations, issued a warrant for Zundel’s arrest. The charge? Denial material he posted on his website…while in Tennessee. The German legal theory was that since the internet “brought” Zundel’s words into German “territory,” and since Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, Zundel had committed a crime on German soil no differently than if he'd strangled a guy in Munich.

Of course, free-speech advocates the world over rose up in outrage over such a draconian affront to speech rights. Oh wait, no. Free-speech advocates the world over pursed their lips like Don Knotts and ran away. Well done, free-speech advocates the world over. Well done.

After three years of living peacefully in the U.S., Zundel was dragged from his home in 2003, accused of violating his visa (a charge later questioned by a district court judge in Knoxville). U.S. authorities shipped him back to Toronto, where the Canadians promptly tossed him into a 6-by-8-foot isolation cell…for two years. Post-9/11 laws had given the Canadian government new powers to indefinitely detain people without charge; no need for a trial this time! In 2005, I arranged an interview with The Hamilton Spectator‘s Bill Dunphy (a longtime Zundel foe), who straight-out stated that Zundel’s appalling treatment resulted from “political pressure” from “groups that are opposed to Zundel and his ideology” (i.e., Jewish organizations). Dunphy admitted that these groups “demanded” Zundel be locked away, and the government acquiesced.

And as Zundel languished in a tomblike cell for denying a past genocide, former Rwandan ruling-party strongman Leon Mugesera, an actual perpetrator of a present-day genocide, was not only allowed to walk free, he even got a teaching job at a prestigious Quebec university (because, from Jim Carrey to Tom Green, Canadians have always loved absurdity).

After two years of what can pretty much only be described as torture (his cell lights were never dimmed, he was allowed no hot food, he was deprived of medicine), Zundel was shipped to Germany, where he was immediately declared a security risk and put in yet another cell without bail as a “flight risk.” See the logic there? Bring a guy against his will into your country, declare that you don't want him there, and then imprison him because you're afraid he'll leave.


Gold Member
Never forget, the same Canadian government that whines about racism and anti-Semitism backed Grant Bistow (government mole) and the Heritage Front (a neo-Nazi organization supported by the CDN government). Richard Warman, the celebrated human rights lawyer, had a Stormfront account! It's bad for the average Canadian to even look at "hateful" literature, but okay for government stooges to do so.

Mr. Cole also wrote the following, rational, condemnation of criminal sanctions for literature.

As Goes the Holocaust, So Goes the West

David Cole

When did we become so deathly afraid of speech? And why is it oddly appropriate that the recent 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz coincides with ramped-up efforts to curb free-speech rights in the U.S.?

Let’s use a fake Indian as a scout to begin our journey toward the answer.

Last week, Elizabeth Warren announced a “plan of action” to curb “digital disinformation.” The plan features “civil and criminal penalties” for “knowingly disseminating” content that “has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.” Any speech that might “depress voter turnout” would be criminalized.

Warren’s plan follows months of drumbeating by mainstream journalists in the service of criminalizing political speech. “Why America Needs a Hate Speech Law” was the title of an October WaPo piece by Richard Stengel, an Obama administration official–turned–editor of Time magazine. Similar essays have appeared in dozens of mainstream media organs (including Bloomberg). A December Vox survey found that the majority of Democrat presidential candidates favor criminalizing or otherwise suppressing speech that’s deemed “hateful” or “false.”

Warren, though, is the first Democrat to codify those proscriptions into a proposed law, one she’s pledged to pursue as president.

So where does the Holocaust come in? Well, most of Europe’s hate-speech laws were initially crafted to imprison Holocaust revisionists and deniers. In Canada, the government’s recently announced regulation of “fake news” has its roots in the “false news” laws that were used in the ’80s to prosecute revisionists and deniers. And here in the U.S., Warren’s and Stengel’s proposed laws evolved from the 1988 Hofstra Law School “model statute” drafted to criminalize hateful and false speech (the statute, discussed in greater detail here, was tested in moot court against a hypothetical Holocaust denier).

Indeed, the Holocaust serves as the spark for the spirit as well as the letter of modern-day speech criminalization laws. Would-be censors, left and right alike, have always feared speech. But it was the fear of what “too much speech” would do to Holocaust history, and how it could harm the feelings of Holocaust survivors, that prompted the codification of anti-speech paranoia into today’s legal statutes. Arguing in favor of Warren’s curbs on speech, congressional Punjabi (and affirmative-action asterisk law professor) Ro Khanna tweeted, “Falsity has never been part of our 1st Amendment tradition.” In fact, that’s 100% ass backwards; James Madison specifically stated that the “misuse” of speech is an inevitable and tolerable aspect of our First Amendment rights.

If Khanna had an ounce of honesty coursing through his curry-caked arteries, he’d admit that the current war against speech “falsity” originated not with our Founders, but with Jews arguing that “false speech” endangers the memory of the Holocaust and pours salt on the wounds of survivors. We forget the Holocaustian origins of European, Canadian, and (proposed) American anti-speech laws, because these days those laws have metastasized to include protections for every nonwhite non-Christian non-straight non-male “victim group.” But go back to the roots of those laws, and you’ll find Jews humbly beseeching gentile society to curb just a little speech, just for them.

There’s an irony from my youth—the “heyday” of Holocaust revisionism—that I’m only now able to fully appreciate. The way that revisionists responded to Holocaust anti-speech laws inadvertently assisted in their expansion. We would scoff, “Typical Jews—demanding special protection for their interests, acting like only their suffering matters and only their feelings deserve coddling under cover of law.”

We fell into a finely laid trap. Yes, the plan was to make people look at the laws that protected Holocaust history from “false news” and Holocaust survivors from “offensive speech” and say, “Fuckin’ Jews, why do only they get such special consideration? Why not other people who’ve suffered?”

Exactly what the speech suppressors wanted us to say.

Those anti-revisionist laws were a trial balloon, a “phase one.” You can’t overcome the Western tradition of free speech and open debate overnight. You start by establishing acceptance of censorship regarding an issue that’s on most people’s periphery. Something distant from and unimportant to their daily lives. The laws that criminalized Holocaust revisionism and denial affected a ridiculously small number of people. That was the point. Folks got used to the presence of those laws while not being touched by them personally. As Westerners grew comfortable with the notion that yes, Holocaust survivors should be shielded from speech that offends, and yes, the history of the Holocaust is strengthened by restrictions on how it can be debated and discussed, it became easier and easier to expand those “special protections” in more invasive ways.

Whites became accustomed to the idea that some things fall outside the realm of free speech and open debate, and nonwhites (and other assorted “victims”) began clamoring to have their causes and feelings added to the list of things about which one must never speak ill. The Holocaust laws primed the public for the eventual expansion of protected topics and peoples. They were a point of entry for leftists (Jews and non-Jews alike) who understood the value of speech restrictions, and the necessity of them, in the fight to dismantle the traditional West. Like Bontshe the Silent reluctantly asking the angels for a hot roll and schmear of butter, it started with humble old Jews, their hands outstretched, weepily entreating, “Just censor a little speech in this one particular instance,” and it led to where we are today. “Bad speech threatens Holocaust history” has become “Bad speech threatens democracy itself.” “Just censor Holocaust skeptics because their words offend weak old survivors who deserve to live out their final years in peace” has become “Censor all facts about basic biology because mentally ill men in dresses might get upset.”

All current attempts to stifle speech in the name of protecting feelings, and all current scare campaigns about how unregulated speech inevitably leads to bad and destructive outcomes, owe their existence to the acceptance by Western whites of a set of “special circumstances” whereby traditional notions of “fight speech with more speech” and “let truth and falsehood battle it out” and “sticks and stones may break my bones but words’ll never hurt me” don’t apply to Holocaust history and Holocaust survivors.

Back in the early ’90s when I was mouthing off about how you can’t gas people in rooms where the doors lock from the inside, or where the doors open into the room, or where there are plate glass windows in the wall, I was routinely told by non-Jews who had no emotional connection to the Holocaust, “Look, maybe what you’re saying is true, but why say it? Why cause such pain to the poor survivors?” More often than not, my work was banned and censored by people who, though not personally offended by it, nevertheless felt compelled to uphold the “special circumstance” protections granted to Holocaust-related speech.

Back then, a small number of people understood that, in fact, unregulated speech actually made Holocaust history better, sounder. Christopher Hitchens, the New York Post’s Eric Breindel, and seminal Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg all conceded that the challenges posed by Holocaust revisionists and even outright deniers actually forced mainstream Holocaust historians to be better at their job; that being confronted with criticism and opposing theories compels historians to bolster their theses (to be fair, Hilberg only admitted this under cross-examination during the trial of denier Ernst Zundel in Toronto in 1985).

But Hitchens, Breindel, and Hilberg are dead now, as is the simple understanding that truth is only strengthened by having to compete with falsehood.

For anyone in the present day who’s been “canceled” for stating a fact or making a simple commonsense observation, well, welcome to the world of my youth. Don’t forget that mainstream conservatives allied with liberals when it came to “protecting” Holocaust history from the reasonable observations of revisionists like me. And now conservatives bitch that they get banned from social media for making factual observations like “There are only two genders.” Too bad. Your Holocaust “special circumstances” are claimed by trannies now. And blacks. And “immigrants.” And everyone else with an ax to grind against Western civ. Shoulda killed that beast in utero thirty years ago. By acquiescing to what was done to revisionists back then, you guys paved the path to where we all are now.

One additional point: The more dangerous it became back in the ’90s to challenge Holocaust orthodoxy, the more the revisionist side of the debate fell to the extremists. The penalties and punishments chased away everyone with a career or a reputation to preserve. What remained were the nuts, the brawlers who welcomed the fight and enjoyed being branded as Nazis. Since at least the early 2000s, rational Holocaust revisionism has fallen to the irrational deniers, dimwit extremist ideologues who have no interest in historical research and documentation. They just want to “fight the Jews.” The fight, not the historiography, is what appeals to them.

Another irony, this one totally predictable: As rational revisionists were attacked and chased away as Nazis, the field was ceded to actual Nazis.

This is the end result of speech criminalization. Rational voices go silent, because rational people—capable as they are of weighing actions and consequences—do the math and realize that it’s more prudent to pull back and shut up, when speaking freely might cost them their livelihood or freedom.
What happened with Holocaust history will soon happen with topics like male/female biology and IQ inheritability. Anyone with anything to lose will think twice before challenging the left’s orthodoxy on those topics. That’s what speech penalties do; they scare away exactly the people with the intellectual capacity to best make the case that the penalizers don’t want made. And once a field is abandoned to crackpots who spout nonsense, the public becomes even more welcoming of speech proscriptions, due to the general loathsomeness of those being silenced.

Right now in the West, we’re scared to death of speech. The fact that a presidential candidate for a major U.S. political party could run on a platform of curbing speech in order to “save democracy” shows just how bad things are. And it all started with the Holocaust. Holocaust history is precious and “too much speech” poses a threat to it. Therefore, limit speech to “save” Holocaust history. Democracy is precious and “too much speech” poses a threat to it. Therefore, limit speech to “save” democracy. Acceptance of the first precept led to acceptance of the second.

Thirty years ago, sane people had a chance to stop the madness. But they allowed themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into accepting the belief that in “certain circumstances” free speech and open debate are harmful and should be curbed. They assumed that those circumstances would remain special. They’re now the norm.

You got played, folks. And like any gullible mark who falls prey to a sob story in the service of a long con, in the end you have nobody to blame but yourselves.


Gold Member
RE: The Jewish Question (JQ) Conspiracy Theory Thread


Yes. This will surely appease the blue pill crowd.

Let me explain how it goes.

No supporting information = "you're just an ignorant bigot".

Lots of supporting information = "you're a fucking obsessive lunatic".

We did this on Islam a year ago and Zel got knifed on both sides. Yet today that stupid ideology has been revealed and it's par for the course here to see how it negatively affects Western civilisation.

The guys at the head of the red pill pack will always have haters dragging from their ankles screaming at them to turn back.

And after the JQ has been normalised (with no 6 gorillion massacre either) we'll find some other hidden truth that 1% of the forum wants to confront while the rest want to hide under the bed.
Bump. Another in the long line of predictions LDN got right.


Other Christian
By making edgy pictures posing with the NSDAP flag and the extended arm salute, these infiltrators are able to discredit the genuine right-wing dissidents by giving the media an excuse to associate free thought with hatred.

Edit: As a caveat I might caution my fellow Orthobros that this website ("Christians for Truth") is promoting the prelest that the Caucasian peoples are the descendants of the 10 Lost Tribes as opposed to the Orthodox doctrine that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the New Israel. This dangerous theory implies that non-Europeans cannot be Christians and therefore cannot be saved. This is nothing more than a white nationalist version of Zionism.
To say that not everyone (who wants to be saved) can be saved is indeed heresy.


Orthodox Catechumen
A white supremacist country wouldn't allow black men whose only assets are their physical strength to make millions in the NFL and the NBA and become marketable to push for corporate woke-ism, and where said league underestimates exceptional white athletes who could perform on par with blacks

And where a white dude from Eastern Europe gets constantly bullied on the floor



Orthodox Inquirer
Three Jewish women are to head the new US Ministry of Truth.

Funny, I read about this and I thought, "I wonder who will be in charge of these Ministries of 'Truth'"? This isn't just limited to the US, there is a summit with 50 other nations about the future of the internet. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of who heads those organizations in their respective countries.



Orthodox Inquirer
And it was fine.

Jews are Victims.. (again)

Which makes everything okay !!

Exactly. Total Jewish privilege and of course it's ok with Buffett supposedly. Somehow, I also doubt the original assertion that the big investment banks in Wall Street (NYC) weren't hiring Jews. Sounds completely bogus and ridiculous. They were just giving poor old Warren an excuse not to hire him. And he was ok with it because ... the Jews. Everyone must take a backseat to the whiners and complainers so they can get their way.


I'm as aware, or maybe even more, of the Jewish situation than many people. It used to bother me quite a bit. But these days I see it as I do many other things that are happening in the world.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

A sword divides.

God has always been in charge of the divide. Jews are a tool of the divide. The divide is very apparent in America today, it was in the Messiah's time on Earth. (John 8:42-47)

Repent of your sins. Develop a relationship with God, and don't fear the divide. Just be on the correct side of it.

The divide is all part of the plan and the Jews who chose not to follow the Messiah are an integral part of it. As mentioned, it used to bother me quite a bit. But it doesn't now. It's all just part of God's ultimate plan.

God is in charge. Relax.


Gold Member

Note: Below is an old article. Date unknown on when it was written by Richard Curtiss, a longtime Washington Report journalist.

The Cost of Israel to US Taxpayers​

But that’s not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That’s the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that’s $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.

It’s worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.

Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.

Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.

Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.

Although it’s beyond the parameters of this study, it’s worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.

By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi atrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel’s Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
Longer article by Richard Curtiss can be found here: