A crucial and early pusher of the Q and on conspiracy theory
a guy by the name of Jim Watkins apparently ran a site that was
infested with illegal child sexual exploitation.
Now, for those of you who might be unfamiliar with Q and
on conspiracy theorists, they believe that democrats are part of some
satanic cult that trafficked Children and drink the blood of Children.
Like insane conspiracy theories.
But the main tenant, the core of that conspiracy theory is that
Children are being exploited for sexual acts and sex trafficking.
Now, let's get back to Jim Watkins because this report focuses on
the moderation of an earlier website that was run by him.
And here's what we know, review of a little known archive documenting
conversations in the moderation channel of Pink and
earlier internet forum captures Jim Watkins.
The site's administrator pushing for
a hands off approach to the moderation of child porn related content there.
Entries in the archive created between 2004 and 2018 show he was
slow to address concerns about child pornography and dismissed advice from
moderators seeking to stop the spread of potentially illegal content.
And we've got some examples to share with you in just a moment.
But before we do interesting how the political ideology that goes around
calling all sorts of innocent people, including teachers,
groomers and pedophiles has nothing to say about these kinds of stories right.
Now, not on their radar at all.
Not interested in talking about it at all.
And of course these tend to be people who believe in Q and
on conspiracy theories as well.
In a series of posts from the spring of 2009,
including one from June the logs show no record of Watkins appearing on the board,
where moderators lodge deletion requests for a month.
A moderator seeking his help handling the sharing of pedophilia.
This type of content complained about the lack of participation in a post they made
searching him out on another discussion thread where he was more active.
Now in this post,
the moderator offers several potential courses of action to Watkins,
including three different types or three different ways to delete the suspect post.
Along with an option of frankly admitting he doesn't care if Pink
is viewed as a dating service or child porn exchange BBS because of
the consistent volume of pedophilic sharing that keeps happening.
Instead of quickly replying to what many would see as an urgent and
concerning problem, Watkins responds, quote,
let me drink some coffee before I read this deeply.
What?
So your moderators are telling you that there is content on there for
pedophilia and your response is, let me drink a nice cup of coffee and
then maybe later I'll read into it a little more deeply.
Subsequent related messages show a similar pattern Watkins shrugs them off.
I can't seem to solve this problem.
He responded in Japanese, Please tell me
what I should do when a moderator made practical suggestions to Watkins,
including proactively deleting any potential pedophilic content.
The logs show no response.
>> Okay, let me give you more examples because so
look, there's two possible motives here.
One is he wants to make money and he's deeply immoral, evil man.
He doesn't care how he makes the money.
The other is that he actually actively nose and encourages us.
So the option A is I'm not gonna moderate because it costs money to moderate.
I don't care if it's child porn or not child porn.
So that's already horrific, but that's a better option.
Option B is, I know there's child board and I like making money off of it.
Well he had domains where there was apparently child
porn directly making money off of it.
So this doesn't seem unclear.
Let me give you examples that first on the places he was moderating.
A moderator asked Watkins for
permission to delete a thread titled rape scene of a primary school student.
Sorry about the language, but this is what was in the thread.
It continues, sperm have a scene in the vagina of elementary school students and
gang rape, etcetera.
Part two, Watkins initial response, I looked at that thread and
I don't think it's really what the thread says.
There are no links to the pictures.
Don't delete it after other users certain to thread contain such links urged
him to look again, Watkins concedes his error and agrees to remove it.
But the original discussion of raping elementary school students.
He thought if it's just a discussion and
we don't have the links to the actual rape it's totally fine, don't delete it.
Now why do you think you and Q focused on pedophilia?
There's two reasons.
One is, it's the most heinous charge you can make about someone.
So it if you say someone is a child molester, you're not having a conversation
about their trade policies or, or healthcare policies, right?
It ends the conversation.
So its toxicity Is the number one reason.
The number two reason is because all the people who made the charge,
not all of them, but a lot of them are doing projection.
They're used to child porn and so they assume everyone is.
In fact, In one of the posts from
2009 Watkins refers to Cheese Pizza Margherita, pizza.
That is an awful strange reference and
he's actually referring to that as a code word for child porn.
Now, later, if you remember there was Pizza Gate and it was so
weird because they were positive, the democrats were running a pedophilia ring
because Podesta ordered cheese pizza for a democratic get together.
Well to anyone who's not a pedophile, you don't have no idea what that means,
Why would cheese Pizza mean anything?
But to pedophiles, they think, they must be thinking like us, they ordered pizza,
they must want to molest little kids like we do,
that's where the Clooney stuff begins.
So look, man, if you're a Q a non person,
look at the people who started it, you schmucks.
And there's more where this came from.
>> Yeah, I mean, but again, this will just fly under the radar and
teachers who just wanna be supportive of their students.
They'll get labeled the groomers, they'll get labeled pedophiles,
they'll get labeled all sorts of things.
By the way after we did that Rogan story,
a bunch of his supporters who got real hurt that I offended their daddy,
sent me examples of female teachers, right?
Of course it's all anecdotal stuff.
Show me like studies show me an actual pattern,
like anecdotal stuff doesn't prove that there's an actual trend or pattern.
But nonetheless, the story here story there of a female teacher,
either in her mid twenties or early thirties,
having engaging in sexual acts with one of her students,
which I think is wrong and she should face charges for that.
And I've always been consistent on that issue.
But it's interesting that joe Rogan in one of his stand ups, specifically defended
that female teachers sleeping with their students is totally fine.
So which one is it?
Are they groomers or pedophiles when they engage in that behavior?
Or is it something to celebrate for
the male students who had sex with the older teacher?
>> Yeah.
And they do this sleight of hand where they're like, well,
are you saying there's no child molesters?
Of course there's child molesters, there's Donald Trump's best friend,
Jeffrey Epstein, who he said likes them young.
He knew that he was a molester.
The group number one groomer in the country, everybody knows it.
And if you're a right winger, your Q and on, best of all, Ghislaine Maxwell,
that was Epstein's main helper.
She was the groomer.
She would bring in the young girls groomed them for Epstein and his rich buddies.
>> Trump wishes her well.
>> And he wished her well twice while he was president, she got arrested.
At that point, we already know she's the leading groomer in the,
literally in the history of the country and trump goes, I wish her well, but no.
When the right wing does it, and it's super obvious, ignore it.
It's only the democrats.
Okay, yes, of course it's child molesters in the country who schmucks.
Let's go stop the actual child molesters instead of doing a Randall
political attack on your ideological opponents.
That doesn't actually have anything new with child molestations?
I wanna come back to the main sites that Watkins himself was running?
Remember the Watkins that the dad that we're talking about here?
And the Sun Ron Watkins who was now running of course
as a republican in Arizona are the guys who ran A Chan and
had the correspondence with Q and on an HBO documentary shows
pretty overwhelmingly that it was actually Ron Watkins.
And so now back to his dad Watkins acknowledged hosting the sites.
These are not now moderation, these are his own porn sites, okay?
But denied that the sites contain child sex abuse material.
Despite analysis of metadata from several of the domains showing that they featured
file names suggesting that they harbored pedophile content like quote XX Pre team.
>> My God.
>> And quote Children alongside sexual references to girls aged 12- 15.
That was on the sites that he ran and he profited off of.
And then lo and
behold the Watkins come up with a theory about how their ideological opponents,
the democrats because of cheese pizza or actually running a pedophile ring?
It's projection 101 these right wingers are absolute utter monsters.
They do monstrous things and then they blame the other side for it.
So that's what's happening.
Thank you to mother Jones for doing actual investigative journalism.
Great job.
And everyone else will, as anna said, you can see you'll see it for yourself,
will ignore the story.
They won't cover it and they don't make it seem like are democrats child molesters?
Let's debate at 11, okay.
When in reality the child molesters are the ones that started
the conspiracy theory in the first place.
And I don't know that they molested Children.
They just sold it for profit.