If you see left and/vs/or right ideology like this,
<-----[Extreme Left]-----[Left]-----[Center]-----[Right]-----[Extreme Right]----->
and can bend it into a loop to see it like this,
[Center]
---
[Left] /// \\\ [Right]
--- ---
\\\ ///
---
[Extreme Left/Right]
then you might be able to consider how we've been purposefully misled to not see this,
[Good]
---
///|||\\\
[C e n t e r]
\\\|||///
---
[Evil]
and It might also explain why there's so much confusion between left and right where only two aims are clear: the many extremes walking the wide path, and the few centered walking the narrow path.
Biblical
The Great Awakening
i thought Q said to ditch the anti-semitism, that they would handle israel (albeit last)
"Anti-semitism" is a word created by a particular group of people who call themselves Jews to control people and keep them from looking at, or talking about the evidence of their fuckery. When you suggest we "shouldn't be anti-semitic" you are being controlled by their manipulation.
The problem with anti-semitism, or even the phrase "the Jews," is that it carries with it an association fallacy. The evidence suggests that there really is a plan by "the Jews" to create their Utopia, with humanity as slaves to their "Superior" race. But it's not all the Jews. In fact, its barely any of them. The evidence suggests that the vast majority of Jewish people are just as clueless about the large scale ministrations and manipulations of this group of people as the rest of humanity. Not a single one of those people is in any way complicit in these crimes. It's like blaming "American's" when you should be saying "Rockefeller's." The problem is, there isn't a good word for those people who call themselves Jews that are the ones running the show. They are Jews, who are doing what they are doing for "Jewish" reasons. What are you supposed to call them? It is a built in association fallacy, and they have played it up to the point where no one can say anything about any of it at all.
In this particular instance using the word "Jews" was essential to match the phraseology of the original song that was being paraphrased. You gotta give it a pass. It wouldn't have been nearly as funny if they had said:
"Stuck in the middle with the small, elitist group of people who call themselves Jews and commit unbelievable fuckery to create a world completely run by Jews as the Master Race."
Even if it had been more precise and exclusionary.
there are no "jews", there are only post-diluvian atlanteans, and post-diluvian non-atlanteans. makes you wonder why an ostensible Q board would be so invested in promoting the jew thing.
Q said nothing about Atlanteans. Suggesting we should be talking about them has nothing to do with Q. Not to say we should ignore evidence of the past, but your suggestion doesn't fit with Q, it fits with investigations into history. While such investigations are a part of Q, it's not really a part of Q on that scope, especially since Q never talked about it.
Even calling the previous civilization "Atlanteans" is problematic. Who knows what they were called. Plato (or really Solon) called them Atlanteans. That doesn't mean that is what they were called, or even if there was a city called Atlantis, that the people that lived there belonged to the same group as the other people around the world of the pre-diluvian civilization. There could very well have been many groups, many nations, similar to what we have today, and the people you are calling the Atlanteans were just one group.
The Jews may or may not be related to the Atlanteans. Those in charge almost certainly have knowledge from that time, but that doesn't mean they are the "genetic decendents" of them any more than the rest of us.
On the other hand, to suggest there is no such thing as a Jew is ludicrous. Regardless of their origins, it is trivial to find evidence of Jews and Jewry going back 4000 years or so. When you speak about "Jews" it is unambiguous, and people know what you are talking about, thus having conversations about it doesn't require a lot of complicated backstory.
On the other hand, finding evidence that the Atlanteans even existed is not so easy. Thus having conversations about Atlantis or anything else of that nature is far more problematic and requires a very complicated addition of a ton of context. Even supporting the Jews as Atlanteans is incredibly problematic and I am far from convinced (though I admit the possibility and have seen some evidence that supports the assertion).
Because of all the difficulties with a lack of clear evidence of what really happened in the past, to suggest that we should be calling them "Atlanteans" instead of "Jews" wouldn't really help advance any conversations we should be having. On the contrary, it would disrupt everything. I suggest that your suggestion is not a good suggestion.
its called "Q RESEARCH". i don't get your point, you admit the evidentiary possibility but yet it's 'not a good suggestion', self-contradictory. and don't use "problematic", it's a meaningless redditor shibboleth.