>>4728474

>Yes, a baker pushing the JQ,

This is a strawman argument.

Baker did not "push the JQ" by including a global notable that expressly pushed Free Speech.

The reason the graphic focused on the JQ being included in Free Speech is that criticizing/questioning the Jews is so heavily censored throughout the world. It is censored outright where they have managed "hate speech" legislation and it is censored indirectly elsewhere by shaming & social ostracization where possible, and just mayhem/disruption where not (antifa on the streets, shills on the internet).

The tension/opposition between European/Anglosphere nations and Jews has gone back centuries, long before the Freemasons were created.

Can we find roots for all of it that go back further than either the terms "Jew" or "Mason?" Yes.

But to say "we know it's masons therefore don't criticize anyone else" is neither a truth-seeking nor a Free Speech position.

We are a Free Speech board in search of truth. Period.

We can and will criticize whomever we damn well choose.

>>4728695

>pushing muh jooo bs is, however, just shilling,

Why? What makes one particular avenue of inquiry or opinion "shilling" but others not?

> to make this board look bad,

Why does the JQ make us "look bad?" but criticizing other institutions of power (Catholicism/Christianity, GOP, Hollywood, Academia, etc.) which many people also love and have personal reason to defend, not make us look bad?

For God's sake, we use words like "faggot" and "nigger" like the air we breathe? How do these not make us look bad, using schoolyard taunts based on a knowledge of Jewish fuggery does?

>to hide other bad actors

We put up posts and notables about Catholic pedo's and GOP turncoats and white/black/latinx bad actors all the time!

>to divide anons.

This is empty nonsense. It could just as easily be argued that your trying to divide anons between pro-JQ/free-speech and pro-optics/let's-not-be-called-antisemites.

>>4728871

>JQ implies it is every jew.

Same old strawman.

No one said every Jew.

But let me expressly say:

the Jewish Question asks whether there is any organizing principle behind the pattern that there is such a huge overrepresentation of ethnic Jews (religious or secular) in all institutions of power in every Western nation.

Now that we have our argument presented accurately, can you rebut it based on the merits of it w/o misrepresenting it as being based on a ridiculous "all X are Y" premise?

>>4728913

Yup. We love Stephen Miller.

So how about we name it the NAJJQ?

Not-all-Jews-Jewish Question?

Then can we discuss the issue of Jewish Subversion?

>>4728911

>you'll never convince >>4728695

>and even if the debate is conceded today, tomorrow that anon will start all over again with the same BS

Agreed. Not trying to convince the obvs shill, trying to present arguments for newfags & lurkers to help them understand the issue better when these guys get all stirred up. But agree also that it needs to be done sparingly, we're here to research Q stuff, not bandy the JQ back and forth all the time. That derails too.

>>4728408

Any anons agree with me that the guide for newfags should NOT be included in global notables?

Part of the chans' design it creating a bit of learning curve so that newfags have to lurk some before posting, and put effort in to learning the logistics to screen out ppl that just want to spout opinions but not work. This is a work site, not a chat room.

>>4729048

None of what you've said is an argument. You claim I've done nothing for my country while knowing nothing about me, and accused me of denegrating (not delegating btw) individuals when I have done no such thing.