Let’s say there was no ‘Jewish’ predominance in these fields, we would not have a good basis for concluding the conspiracy is currently in the hands of so-called ‘Jews’. Let’s say the power structure remained the way it was before ‘Jews’ began the ascent into power, we would have white people in charge of the overall thing instead of ‘Jews’. So let’s say there are conspiracy researchers who have come up with evidence and tie it all together like we do, but they call it a ‘white conspiracy’, and then some other sub-group decides to start saying that all ‘whites’ are guilty until proven innocent or assume they are guilty - due to this ‘white’ label relation. Some others tone it down and just say all ‘whites’ are suspect until shown otherwise. There are many different kinds of ‘white’ people, but that doesn’t seem to matter if only 5% of them are criminals and 35% are religious supremacists (invented figures, does someone know real figures for this?), this group thinks it should still treat the other 60% as if they are criminals until their innocence can be determined or proven. I don’t agree with that type of criminal accusation system, whatever the real numbers are.

Why can’t it just be that if you are a Talmudic supremacist or have a similar belief, or are a criminal in this whole thing - trying to control us, then that makes you the enemy. This comes with deprogramming people too, ‘Jews among them, into seeing what the hell is going on! ‘When you use words like “..the good ‘Jew’ does not exist”, you come off very wrong. Many people know there are different types of ‘Jews’, and many people know ‘Jews’ themselves that they would term ‘good’ - not ‘good’ according to John’s strict criteria of what could constitute a ‘good Jew’ - but ‘good’ people that are not criminals or Talmudic. All of the criteria that John requires are not a necessity by most peoples concept of ‘good’, I would hope (or else dare I say there are much less ‘good’ people than we think…)

The problem with these 10 minute youtube clips is that they are just 10 minutes. A concept/message/idea is briefly espoused. Then people react to the short message and have questions, or assume things the messenger didn’t say, or are against certain or all of the concepts. If this is a controversial and questionable philosophy for a concept (as I think became apparent after the videos release), a more thought-out in-depth explanation is in order. That would necessitate a much longer video or a well constructed and detailed explanation of the philosophy for people to read in text. If the goal is indeed to provide an idea for others to use, how could you (John or Mike, who currently do not have access to post) think a 10 min video proposing such an idea - in a controversial way - would be easily accepted as the answer? You cannot have possibly thought this video would just go down easy and all of us would just think it was great.

Honestly, think of before you released it, saying “…the good ‘Jew’ does not exist”, “the ‘Jew’ is so vile in its ways”, that would not get some opposing reaction of some kind? The problem is you are defining what a ‘good Jew’ is, whereas others do not agree with those words, or what they mean. The criteria for ‘good’ seems to be extreme, and many who are non-’Jews’ and are against the establishment of a NWO do not qualify as ‘good people’ if the arguments for ‘good Jew’ was applied to them. But some of us did supply some ‘good Jew’ names Also, the broad generalization of defining a ‘Jew’ as equating to Talmudic criminal, is not helping out either. Another approach would be recommended if we hope to get anywhere in convincing others, let alone the other ‘conspiracy researchers’ that don’t agree with the info and conclusions we draw. Taking control back of the word ‘Jew’ would help First amongst ourselves

A more thorough explanation is needed to make a proper case for a new philosophy you want others to accept. Maybe I missed it. But if you choose to re-define a word such as ‘good’ instead of choosing another word that more properly defines your criteria, then do not expect people to agree with the statement “…the good ‘Jew’ does not exist”. I do not accept the use of ‘good’ in that statement, and therefore cannot accept the validity of that statement.

“…there is no excuse for even the common ‘Jew’ to not be aware of it (’Jewish’ influence/control)”
Yet many ‘non-Jewish’ people are not aware of it, why are they not on the same level of condemnation as a ‘Jew’?

So is a ‘Jew’ more someone who is the criminal kind? Is a ‘Jew’ also someone who is Talmudic? Is a ‘Jew’ also someone who is also religiously non-Talmudic ‘Jewish’? Is a ‘Jew’ also someone who is quasi hardly religious and only does menial superficial things associated with ‘being Jewish’ a few times a year? Is a ‘Jew’ also someone who has familial/tribal loyalties to others of the label? Or is a ‘Jew’ simply one who has the label of being ‘Jewish’ due to an existing, long gone or fictitious religious and/or racial relation? And for this reason, they are all suspect for being Talmudic criminals on a mission to enslave/kill us?

So we should be “assuming all ‘Jews’ are guilty”, according to Eric Hufschmid, which John uses as a reliable source in his last video on this discussion, “Friends & Allies”, where he goes after Khanverse with some help from EH. EH says Khanverse is working for ‘them’ now

Introducing your full name, mother, father and place of birth for the first time as a claim that you are open about your identity unlike others who are somewhat likened to ‘mysterious people’ or ‘agents’ of some kind (by EH later on in the video), is not exactly an honest thing to do. How about presenting your identity publicly if you choose to, and then if others - who you want to do the same - do not, then continue with the baseless accusations and have fun pushing yourself into a corner by claiming the only good people who speak up on these issues are those who divulge their full name, etc. Since (according to this line of thought), if you don’t divulge your identity like Khanverse, then you are a ‘mysterious person’ who is working for the criminals - so says EH (which John apparently supports the claims - as he made no disclaimer about not agreeing with EH when presenting the audio clip, but maybe he doesn’t).

I just don’t see how using this strategy is going to be a concept for anyone to accept, i.e. one that involves “…the good ‘Jew’ does not exist” (and relying on EH’s reasoning skills to determine who is an ‘agent’). Just imagine yourself as an ignorant sheeple, but you’re a so-called ‘Jew’ for some reason but are not part of this crap. Now you are guilty for what? For not being knowledgeable about a conspiracy… let’s all just condemn all the sheeple too.

I’m sure the video is good (Missing Links), but making a good video does not excuse thinking everyone should accept your new message, and if they don’t they are somehow a ‘tripe of detractors’ (if it isn’t everyone who doesn’t agree, then who exactly are these tripe John? You were not specific). Similar to calling people ‘cowards’ in earlier videos. That is just not proper leadership if that is what you are trying to do by introducing a new concept. Think it out more and come back with something you can at least get us - who are at least aware of the issues you discuss - to agree with. Then you can possibly consider it as an idea that would perpetuate and ‘force multiply’. But face it, if you can’t get much of the like minded people to be on the same page (us), then the likelihood of affecting any ‘change’ with that message is very slim-to-none.

Just because no one else is providing a different concept/idea, does not mean this one is the best one to do now. It is not. And it does not prevent others who do not have a concept of their own - to resolve the problems we face - from analyzing and criticizing the proposed idea.