Okay, you know me - I've posted about conspiracy theories a few times in this board; I'm the person who says no conspiracy theories are true.For the first time, I have to admit: moot very likely creating /pol/ the same day he first met Jeffrey Epstein is genuinely kind of strange. (This is actually real and not bullshit.)I know /new/ existed before this, but /pol/ itself was created the day he met Epstein.What do you all think? I'm skeptical that Epstein was like "make a honeypot/psyop" or that moot would take direction from Epstein to make a honeypot/psyop, but it does seem like this might not be coincidental. Maybe there was a conversation he was part of, or heard, that somehow gave moot the idea to make it?
>>12760292its all starting to make sense now since /pol/ being created was the origin event that led to ruining 4chan through gaymergay, 8gag, 2016 election, /pol/ spam derailment on every board, etc
>>12760296moot clearly hated Gamergate and tried to ban it and sold the site not long after. I think it's probably too much of a stretch this was all an elaborate plot, even if I now cannot rule it out.One part is Epstein genuinely does not actually seem that smart or strategic. You read all the emails and all his actions and he just seems like a narcissistic pedophilic sociopathic fuckwad, not a genius puppetmaster. I kind of wouldn't buy him pitching moot on such a complicated plan.Another is that moot - while his ethics are now definitely called into question here - probably is not evil or deeply immoral. I don't really believe he would intentionally do something that diabolical.That said, yeah, /pol/ is responsible for so much going to shit and he made it when he first met Epstein, so I can't keep anything off the table.Not sure what to think.
During the 2016 election if a thread on any board became anti-Trump you would be spammed with bots of images of beautiful Korean womenIt really makes sense that 4chan is a deliberate tool for destabilizationYour fortune: Bad Luck
Well it's not like /pol/ came out of thin air. Like you say /new/ existed and there were people from there who still wanted a board to discuss news after it's deletion. I think some other internet people were bugging moot about it to, like I remember reading something about the encyclopedia dramatica guy asking moot to bring it back. Epstein and those types probably saw the potential in 4chan for manipulation, and would want a /pol/ to exist. I doubt just one conversation with the guy would have convinced moot to make /pol/, but all that other shit combined with it might have. It makes sense to me at least. Oh I hope our poor mootykinz isn't evil and was just being used. I mean him leaving 4chan just a few years later and keeping a low profile ever since seems to indicate he was done with this shit. I wonder if this will force him to make some sort of statement.
>>12760308I think he's smart enough to know that trying to make some sort of statement here about this would never actually dispel anything.
Do you think Epstein has namesearched in archives?
>>12760308From everything I have seen from moot and everything that's come out, I doubt he is evil, yeah. A lot of people connected with Epstein around this time because he was big into tech and weird ideas and loved sponsoring and networking with eccentric tech and science people. I am sure that was moot's original reason for deciding to meet him - though who knows to what extent moot was aware of Epstein's 2008 child solicitation conviction and the facts surrounding it.I think it's unlikely moot intentionally created /pol/ as like a cyberweapon or a chaos instigator or something. I can believe he maybe made it because he thought it would be fun and interesting and that maybe some discussion he had during this meeting inspired him.It is possible that maybe Epstein or someone else there did see the potential for manipulation and suggested it to moot with that goal in mind, without moot being aware he was being used as a tool. I would believe that over moot being a complicit collaborator in a sinister scheme. He wasn't perfect but I would bet a lot of money he is fundamentally not an evil guy who wanted all of this shit to happen.And, also, not to defend Epstein or his crew, obviously, but it is possible one of them suggested it to moot without any nefarious intentions and all of this shit just emerged naturally.>>12760312Probably yeah.>>12760313Honestly Epstein seemed like a stupid boomer who wouldn't even understand there were archives or how they could be searched or where they were. He used 4chan a bit but I think, unsurprisingly, just as a gooner.The general picture I'm getting from these leaks is that Epstein definitely ran something like a pedophile group, but that he was not a master manipulator type. I think it was more of an informal partying thing. The blackmail/intelligence agency/Mossad stuff is still murky and it's unclear how much truth there is to it. He was involved in blackmailing some people, but not necessarily on anyone's orders.
>>12760324This reads like damage control
>>12760324Some of the case for Mossad involvement is:- Ghislaine's father was likely an important Mossad asset, as well as an asset to other intelligence agencies- He and Ghislaine were Jewish, which would slightly increase the odds, and I assume were pro-Israel- Epstein was close friends with Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel- That odd statement from Acosta which he later retracted, about Epstein "belonging to intelligence"Based on other email leaks, Epstein did seem to act in Israel's geopolitical interests: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-ehud-barak-putin-israel-russia-syria-war-depose-assadIt would actually be kind of funny if Epstein wasn't really a spy and there was no Mossad blackmail operation with him as the operator but instead he was kind of a global shadow diplomat who used his connections to help get things done. It absolutely could be both, but there seems to mostly be evidence for the latter and not yet any for the former. It's possible his pedophilia and underaged prostitutes were considered more as liabilities than assets.
>>12760337Who, me? As I stated in the OP, I'm the hardcore conspiracy theory skeptic who believes no conspiracy theories are true. I am presenting the "defense" case, yeah. I have no fucking idea and maybe moot was in on a plot and maybe all the Mossad-Epstein blackmail allegations are real, obviously. Are you saying you think I'm like some controlled opposition working with Epstein to soften the impact of this revelation?I've used 4chan for years and I just want to know the truth. It's all very interesting. moot is an interesting figure, /pol/ is very influential. I like trying to know what's true, and with what likelihood. That's way more fun and challenging than solely speculating about conspiracies.
For all I know you're that one anal retentive Israeli anon
>>12760337>>12760346And obviously I don't know moot as a person and I am looking at him with rose-tinted glasses. Just my impression of him over the years is that he probably is not fundamentally a bad guy and probably would not do a 4-year-long mastermind thing with malicious intentions.>>12760349IDK what that means, I'm not Israeli. I'm American, born and raised. I'm just a contrarian and like playing devil's advocate. Who is the Israeli anon? It's possible I am the person you were thinking of and you just assumed I/they were Israeli
I think /pol/ being created right after moot met Epstein is pure coincidence. IDK if that meeting was of any substance other than just establishing a connection as Epstein was known to do with all kinds of people. I think this really shows that the elites early on recognized the potential of 4chan for radicalizing people, even before shit like gaymergate happened.
Honestly, all I get out of this is that Epstein is a pretty cool guy. I don't think I've ever seen someone post an Epstein page or fact about how he caused someone's death (which I'm sure he probably has done, I just don't really care enough to research). Everything is about his "rapes" which seem to involve a lot of their own inner circle's children that they then set up with an Ivy league education through bribes, which sounds pretty nice tbh.
>>12760375I agree it's more likely than not just a coincidence, or, like, essentially a coincidence (so it caused some chain of events that spurred moot to do it, but very indirectly).And, yes, I doubt any of the meetings were that interesting, it was probably mostly networking events with some business and tech people who Epstein knew.It seems like /pol/ may have been the very same day, though, and it was the very first meeting, so it is just kind of weird.>I think this really shows that the elites early on recognized the potential of 4chan for radicalizing peopleAssuming the /pol/ thing is a coincidence, then I think probably not. Around 2011 4chan was just kind of seen as an interesting, dark, creative thing . I think Epstein/friends probably just found 4chan and moot interesting and weren't thinking about radicalization. A lot of people met with him and interviewed him.moot did his first reddit AMA in 2011: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/gdzfi/iam_christopher_poole_aka_moot_founder_of_4chan/Press coverage, etc.: https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/02/founder-stories-poole-moot-4chan-memes/He also started his (failed, lame) startup Canvas in 2011. Epstein was probably partly interested in that and moot maybe thought these events could help him grow Canvas.In 2011, I don't believe anyone was talking or thinking about 4chan causing radicalization. I think it would've been 2013 at the earliest that that started entering the discourse, and, as you say, especially 2014 with Gamergate.>>12760393He bribed and groomed young teenage girls and exploited them for sex. He was not a good guy. I believe at least some of the underage girls did not initially know that it was going to turn into a sex-for-hire thing. It started with massages and would escalate.And even if they instead did have foreknowledge, underage people can't truly consent to being paid in exchange for having sex with adult men they don't want to have sex with, no matter how lucrative.
>>12760393And that's even assuming any of the sexual acts were (to any degree) consented to. The accusations include not just statutory rape but rape. Even if they were adults, that would be horrible. Weinstein only did what he did to adults, and he rightfully will die in prison. So he both sexually groomed underaged girls and was a rapist. If he hadn't committed suicide, he, too, should have and likely would have been sentenced to die in prison.
It's all jesus fault
weird ass damage control thread dayou ne
i thought mooti was one of the good guys but they got him too
