RSS

Is “Q” a child pornographer?

No one knows who the “Q” behind QAnon is, but Jim Watkins, owner of 8chan, is one of the suspects. Wikipedia says,

“Some journalists and conspiracy theory researchers believe that Watkins knows the identity of, or that he himself is, ‘Q’, the person or group of people behind the QAnon conspiracy theory.”

And Watkins is involved in the pornography business. Wikipedia again:

“Watkins founded the company N.T. Technology in the 1990s to support a Japanese pornography website he created while he was enlisted in the United States Army.”

Now, Mother Jones has connected Watkins and his company to child pornography:

“Mother Jones has uncovered that Jim Watkins, the owner of 8chan and its successor site, 8kun, controls a company that hosted scores of domains whose names suggest they are connected to child pornography. While Mother Jones did not visit the domains because of strict laws related to viewing child sex abuse material, internet registration and hosting data suggest at a minimum that Watkins profited from domains with names explicitly related to pedophilia—the very thing that QAnon followers say that they’re motivated to end.”

When Mother Jones contacted Watkins, he denied the allegations and called them a “smear.” But, Mother Jones says,

“Using a combination of open-source and commercially available data, the researcher confirmed that the domains pointed to IP addresses registered to N.T. Technology, and that the IP addresses were routed to the company’s network while the explicit domains were active.”

These are dots. Many of the lines are missing. Watkins may not be “Q,” just an opportunist profiting from a false conspiracy theory that he perhaps helped go viral. But what’s clear is that he isn’t a priest; or, if he is, he’s a corrupt high priest.

Read his Wikipedia bio here and the Mother Jones story here.

Photo: Jim Watkins, founder and owner of 8chan, is Washington State native and son of a Boeing worker.

Return to The-Ave.US Home Page


0 Comments Add Yours ↓

  1. G #
    1

    The dude looks like a pedofhile himself.

  2. Roger Rabbit #
    2

    Now now, we can’t go by appearances; we must do the hard work of reaching evidence-based conclusions …

  3. High priest #
    3

    Opportunistic profits of a “high” priest?

    I never met a “high” priest, but I have met a drunk priest.