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
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.
You made the claim "there are no 'jews.'" That is not a true statement. There are obviously jews. Whoever else they might be is worth digging in to, and in any such dig, if you provide supporting evidence, I suggest it would be beneficial to the conversation to call them whatever you want because it would (presumably) make sense in context.
In any other context, it would not make sense, and would only cause confusion because literally everyone knows who the jews are.
Calling them Atlanteans may be true, or may be completely false, or may even be a psyop designed specifically to create division with planted evidence (those things exist far broader than most people realize). All using the word "Atlanteans" would do in off context conversations (a word few really understand, and may not even be real in any scope), when what you really mean is "jews" (a word everyone understands and is undeniably real in some scope) would be to cause confusion, division, and cognitive dissonance. It would not help advance any conversation or investigation unless the investigation/conversation were specifically about that topic itself. (Or you wanted to direct the conversation in that direction, which I admit is sometimes helpful, but would be very annoying if it were constantly applied).
The word requires context or it is problematic.
There is nothing wrong with the word problematic. It may ruffle your feathers, but it communicates exactly that there are extrinsic problems with something. If communication is not confused, then it is not problematic. If it is confused, which is what your suggestion was aimed to do, it is.