I think we talked about this a while ago, that my German view is a bit different. There is in fact a long tradition among left wing people in Germany, that tends to get close to antisemitism (and some of these are currently part of governments even). This is basically related to the Middle East conflict. I think you can say, during Cold War Western Germany rather supported the Israeli side, like the USA did, while East Germany and some left-wing people in Western Germany supported the Palestinians (also left-wing terrorists like RAF were regularly trained or sheltered in Palestine and East German GDR).

Today there has rather been a political shift to support the Islam in Germany, accompanied by a huge muslim immigration wave the German government favoured explicitely. This led, for example, to a scene where radically antisemitic Hamas protesters were allowed by the state here in Berlin while one single Israeli anti-protester was arrested by police as "provocateur". If I have the impression today that someone here is being treated preferentially by the state it's really not so much the quite small Jewish community, rather the muslims.

I don't know. I can't really say I know. But what I'm very sure of is that it's always tending to be problematic propaganda if people start with "the" and then name any kind of striking group that everything bad could be blamed on. Like "the" hippies/punks/old people/covid-rules sceptics/Trump-/Biden-voters or whatever. I'm sure you can easily say that like 99 % of "the" Jews have nothing to do with what you're thinking of.

For the people who try to stay reasonable it is more helpful to stick to factual arguments. That's where one can more easily say "Oh, sounds like he is right, think about it." But, at least from an European point of view, I think it is really problematic to say "It' just 'the' [some group]", since it can't really be argumented, it factually won't fit for at least most of the people in that group, and it's so easily rejected as something where even most reasonable people would say "No, I won't go with that." And they might think primitively like "So probably EVERYTHING he says is unacceptable, and I will go with the other side then." You know what I mean? People get lost between propaganda and counter-propaganda. I rather tend to stick to points where I think I have good factual argumentation for.

I have no doubt that there are people I would really refuse also in Israeli politics and in many kinds of Jewish organization. Like there are always everywhere SOME people now, who somehow seem to act like all gone crazy. That's much more my point: I lost the trust in almost any institution. But I refuse to say that e.g. my old friend Chagi (wherever he is now) has anything to do with it, just because he's from Israel. No way. This is not a good approach.

I think it's the same point we ended with when we discussed that last time.

Of course the USA have been one of the globally most important countries of refuge for Jews between 1933 and 1945. And it's just natural that these many many people tried to bring and keep and improve all their money and connections that could grant them a "good life" in the "new world".

So I really can imagine that there are still today some Jewish based interest groups in the USA that might (try to) form some concentration of power, maybe also hold close connections to Israel, and maybe they even refer to their roots explicitly, or maybe it has more to do with money than with Judaism. I just don't know. I only can say that I don't see anything like that in Europe or Germany.

So that's the good thing about these exchanges, I think: Things can look differently, whether we watch them from USA or Europe. Good to know, isn't it?

Ah, sorry, again, as you mention big data: I do see this as a problem here too, of course. But that's why I'm on diaspora, not on Facebook.

And I just don't care why maybe people like Zuckerberg and such do what they do. I just criticize THAT they do it and I can exactly say WHAT I don't want about it (censorship, propaganda, concentration of too much money and influence...) We can easily argue and justify this, and we don't need much else for this.

I have indicated that I do think there's "a globalization in this". I don't think it will make much difference when we go to elections this Sunday. There is obviously some kind of global elite, some "international jetset" that was already well known for trying to make big economy independent of states and voter interests. And now there's a clear impression that also political parties in many countries and from many political directions seem to be playing a similar globalized game.

I just don't really know who these people are, apart from those we see in front of the cameras. I don't know who is how much independent from whom -- I mean, no doubt the German Chancellor, whoever that would be, could still do whatever he wants. There are pressures to conform, internationally. But how does that work? Who has how much more to say than who? I assume that even the US-president is far from deciding what he wants, probably not even knows about many things that thousands of secret service agents and top military handle -- secretly.

It's for most people not very acceptable to claim, there is like a small group of 300 or whatever, who dictates everything. And in fact, I don't think this is very likely. Things are usually much more complicated, I think. But much more: Does it really interest me? What interests me, and what is our job as ordinary people, I think, is to say "These are my rights. You took them away from me, and I blame you, politician, for this. And I demand my rights back." Why some bad guys stick together and what they're having in mind maybe -- it's not my business in the first place.

On blocking: I try, saying again, to argue things that I think I have good reason for saying. If someone blocks me for that, he's obviously not interested in reasonable discussion and that's not my place to be then. Can't help it. But that's also why I try to avoid too much speculation, where I might have to say "No, he's right, I don't know anything about it, just claimed it."