Jamie, the "comfort stick" on X and TikTok, joins Spencer to dissect the Epstein files’ release—20,000 emails and texts dropped by Epstein’s estate amid congressional delays—and the alarming caller question on Dean Withers’s show: "Why is child rape wrong?" They reject arguments like "barely legal" (e.g., 15-year-olds) as predatory rhetoric, warning it fuels incel entitlement and risks eroding consent laws, especially in red states. Early sex education emerges as a critical countermeasure to abuse normalization, with both stressing the need to dismantle harmful justifications before they gain traction. [Automatically generated summary]
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast that is creating and interpreting the language of the disinformation age.
So, I'm Spencer, your host, and I have a special guest today.
Go ahead.
Hi, I'm Jamie, and you might know me as the comfort stick on X or TikTok or anywhere else.
Yeah, Jamie's here to help me talk about a very uncomfortable topic today.
So, that's in place of a essentially a disclaimer.
This is going to be some sensitive topics surrounding pedophilia, maybe abuse of people under age, what that means.
No visceral details, but we will be talking around this quite a bit for the bulk of this episode.
So, if you're if that's not a thing you're into, if that triggers you, you don't like that, this is not the episode for you.
Just skip to the next one.
So, let's set the table on what we're really talking about here.
So, there are a number of ideas in the world that people just don't question.
This isn't a flaw.
It's not that these people are incurious, but sometimes our online online, say, pontificators ungenerously label these ordinary people as sheep or like sheeple.
People who follow the herd and don't question the nature of our world as it stands.
That's unfair.
Most people aren't amateur philosophers.
They don't have side projects of reinventing math and philosophy and all these other subjects to reconfigure their own reality.
Most people have better things to do with their time than to wonder why this thing or that thing that they've considered to be true for their entire lives is even true in the first place.
This leads to some problems sometimes with when disingenuous people start asking these kinds of questions.
The disingenuous put on a pretense of intellectual curiosity in order to appear to be smarter than whomever it is they're speaking to that hasn't ever asked this particular question.
They pretend that questioning reality is a sign of courage, no matter what situation they back themselves into as a result.
The quintessential example of this is the flat earth.
Again, I pick on the flat earthers, but again, they started it.
Most people haven't questioned the shape of the earth.
They haven't thought very hard about how it is they might be able to prove that the earth is an oblate spheroid and why that might make sense at all over any other shape.
And the flat earthers attempt to use that fact to advantage by putting on an air of superiority about their willingness to question reality in this way, by placing a new social expectation upon whomever they sell their ideas to that seemingly normal person needs to be able to explain all of the reasons why all of the observations we have about the movements of the sun, the planets, the moon, and the stars make perfect sense.
And by the way, not all the observations thrown out by the flat earthers will be honest and accurate in these impromptu pop quiz situations.
Also, the standard for your conclusions will be very, very high, and the standard for their conclusions will be very, very low.
If you haven't been able to explain all movements of everything in the sky, as well as all experiments about flatness of water and how density works in a fluid on Earth, then maybe their flat Earth notions are real after all.
And if you haven't fully debunked every single one of their pseudoscientific notions about all of the same, then again, they hold onto a shred of grass while dangling over the proverbial cliff edge for their ideas, and they live to argue about flat Earth another day.
We look at Flat Earth as a relatively harmless idea.
Believing in it isn't likely to directly harm one's life.
This hazard metric changes immediately when one transfers it to something like vaccinations.
The decision to skip vaccinations now comes with an increasing level of hazard.
Why is the hazard increasing?
Well, it turns out that one could go unvaccinated if everyone else was subsequently vaccinated.
But as the anti-vax movement convinces more people to skip vaccinations, they increase their own level of hazard.
We don't fight the anti-vax movement to save ourselves at their expense.
We fight the anti-vax movement to save them from themselves.
Today, we're going to examine a new and sharply relevant aspect to the unreality landscape.
One that made me catch my breath and kind of panic a little bit when I saw where this might go.
I don't consider myself much of an alarmist, but once the potential for harm is sufficiently high, I think we all owe it to each other to pay attention.
Just in case this episode is being heard sometime in the future, I want to include a few facts that pinpoint where we are currently on the timeline.
It's November 16th, 2025.
The Epstein files have been at the top of the list of political topics in the U.S. for many months.
Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has done what he imagines is his duty to the president by overtly and sometimes explicitly delaying a vote on a bill that would mandate the release of the Epstein files.
Four days ago, on November 12th, the Epstein estate secured the release of roughly 20,000 of Jeffrey Epstein's personal emails and texts, many of which include details of his movements and meetings that don't directly incriminate but give anyone investigating this a lot of new places to look for new evidence.
Three days ago, the discharge petition was passed that would force Congress to vote on whether to release the Epstein files.
It's widely expected that this vote will pass and the Epstein files will be released this coming week.
All of this appears to be bad news for Trump.
And if it isn't, then he probably deserves an Oscar for the sad clown routine he's been trotting around for the press.
But what I really want to focus on is what happened two days ago.
I started seeing this come up in various places on Twitter.
And then I saw this happen.
So, for those who don't know, Dean Withers is a left-wing commentator who has made a name for himself by arguing with right-wingers.
This by itself isn't new or particularly extraordinary.
He is notable because he has an excellent memory recall of facts on the spot to debunk misinformation.
He frustrates the QAnon adult and the pro-Trumpers as he does become a target for them.
The other night, after it became seemingly certain that the Epstein files will eventually be released, this happened on what is essentially his call-in internet show.
So we're going to play a clip.
Here it is.
What is you asking me why it's wrong to rape children?
Yeah, I need to tell me why it is wrong in your eyes to rape children.
To do that.
Yes.
Do you need me to talk in your ears or what's up?
Why is it wrong?
Is that too hard of a question?
Dean looks stumped here.
With the background noise, if you want.
I'm just, I'm ready to hear your answer.
He's holding his forehead.
Like a face palm motion.
Loud sound.
It's happening.
It's actually happening.
That pearl clutching is so beta.
I don't actually answer the question.
It's actually happening.
He's calling me a pro clutcher for saying that child rape is wrong.
no because i asked the question why are you why are you i i didn't i didn't i didn't think this one would happen It's wrong, and then Trump will do it.
Did that with six pardons?
Did that with Medicaid cuts?
Did that with the snap cuts?
Just didn't think they do it with child rape.
Let's just get to the fucking point, bro.
I just I just seriously at that point where Trump supporters are now saying that it's not wrong to rape children and asking why it is wrong to rape children.
All right, so.
So.
How you feeling, Jamie?
Well, that's a lot.
Yeah, it's hard for me because what letter grade first do you do you give him?
Yeah.
Well, sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead.
I get the lack of response because, I mean, he's clearly shocked.
Like, you don't expect people to hit you with shock value questions.
Nobody does.
And when you do, it does make sense not having anything.
He is get hit with shock value questions, but he prepares for like the ones that he thinks he's going to get.
You know what I mean?
Like he knows he can recall.
I've seen him.
He can recall all kinds of stats of all manner of thing, economic and all sorts of things.
Yeah, he's great with stitches.
But he's obviously didn't prepare for anything even close to this.
Didn't feel that he ever needed to.
So that's why I thought it would be interesting because most people don't feel they ever need to answer that question.
Well, I mean, we don't talk about why taboos are taboo most of the time.
We all collectively go, what do you mean?
But reality is, it is important to understand those things.
And I, you know, you and I talked about this.
I'm a little disappointed that he didn't actually come back and at least make sure to answer that question because I feel like that needs to be the conversation.
It just needs to be addressed.
And when we have this society that lacks compassion so strongly, you really have to start talking about what sentience is.
And you have to talk about what suffering is and why it is important to have compassion and why, for me, at least I see the importance of learning and teaching compassion over anything else almost growing up when it comes to self-defense, fighting, things like that.
You know, if you don't have compassion first in almost anything.
you know, our society is damned.
But his answer, it just, I get the shock.
And then the guy adding in the like homophobic remarks and the like pearl clutches.
That's common.
I think from he seeks like he appears to seek out those types of people to engage with because he wants to challenge them.
Most people don't want to bother engaging with them on that level.
They don't feel that it's worth their time.
It's very, very difficult.
You have to be very, very quick like he is in order to even think that that's true because most of those people are gish galloping.
And he's essentially with his memory recall, he is countering what is essentially the gish gallop on a daily basis, which is a thing that's remarkable about Dean Withers himself.
But that's clearly not happening in this situation.
He was fully flat-footed.
He was fully caught off guard, didn't know how to answer that question, hadn't arranged anything, probably didn't ever think that he would have to answer that, right?
Who does think they would ever have to answer that?
And this is why we probably need to actually answer it now.
Yeah.
Because these questions aren't time-limited questions.
They're posed in situations like that one, as though if he can't answer in the next 30 seconds, well, then obviously my question is valid and it's good and we can do the things we want.
We're going to hear it again.
I'm sure.
I'm 100% sure we're going to hear it again.
This is why we need to jump on this with both feet, get our answers out, make sure people, other people know, because everyone's going to need to know now why child rape is wrong.
Why pedophilia is wrong, why we shouldn't do this, why children cannot consent.
And we have to actually say it.
We can't skip on past the answer with, and of course it's wrong.
We have to actually say it.
Yeah.
And there's, I mean, there's a lot of layers to it too.
So, you know, there's, there's different dimensions to this.
You know, you can go with it and say, well, to be a pedophile, you have a paraphiliac disorder.
That means you live in distress.
You are mentally disabled, not disabled, you have a mental illness.
You have something going on with you where you're putting other people in danger with your mindset, your ideology, even, I guess you could say.
So there's, there's layers to the conversation that we're having, unfortunately, that just kind of sucks to even have.
But back to your main point being sentience to me is the answer.
We know what suffering is and we know it because we've all suffered.
But to pretend that if somebody can't maybe specify or articulate their suffering, that they don't experience it, we know that's not true.
And we know that there's plenty of scientists.
There's great people we can look to.
Sam Harris is one of my favorite people to have that conversation.
And he does a great job of explaining how sentience is important.
And it's not limited even to humans.
It's something we worry about with animals.
You know, we have vegetarians, vegans that are really good at this conversation.
And you can even take it back to plants.
We know that plants will fight for their lives.
They're sentient beings.
So we know what sentience is, but to explain that in a dynamic with a child, it's kind of like that moment when you see Dean's face and you're like, he didn't think he'd ever have to say this because who doesn't know children suffer?
They cry.
Like, we know they suffer.
Everyone knows they suffer.
We've all been once.
It's not only about suffering either.
And that's there's many aspects to why we as a generally in society strongly encourage not only everyone inside our society, but everyone in other societies to change how they are.
Because we all know, like when we look back in history, we have moved this age up.
And in some places, we have slowed down the movement up.
And we've asked why it's been so slow moving up.
And we have areas of our world that have some places have only recently moved up from a you could marry at the age of 15 until fairly recently in some places on this continent that we're on now.
And we've moved that, I think, I think, I'm not sure what the age, the minimum age you can marry in Canada is.
I think it might even be 16 with parent consent, but it's still like felt that it's icky.
It's not done very often.
And we're still pushing to try to move that up.
But in this, what we have to understand is that children are notably bad at understanding consequences.
So yes, things that have consequences like this, not only consequences for things like pregnancy and disease, but for their psychological health for the rest of their life.
Yeah.
Those are things we have to consider.
And we have begun to consider much more thoroughly than we ever have in the past.
In the last century, we've moved this a lot.
And this is where a lot of our progress has been the last hundred years.
But we have to now, we have to look at what arguments we're going to see.
And we only need to look at the other areas of reality denial, I think, to see where that's going to be, right?
What kinds of questions people are going to be.
They're going to be like, well, you know, for millennia, we, you know, we let people marry at whatever, 13, 14, whatever.
So obviously it was fine for us when it was ancient Egypt.
So why should it be any problem now?
I would think that we're better than we used to be.
I would like to think that we've moved on to a point where we're better than we were thousands of years ago.
I would like to think that.
I'd like to too.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But, you know, statistics in this country kind of tell us otherwise.
We're not, we're not doing good.
You know, and well, it just, it's a hard reason.
But that's, that's not a reason to say, okay, well, you know, we're, okay, we're not doing good.
So let's just fuck it.
Let's just let everyone do everything they want to do.
Of course you don't.
Of course we don't.
Like, what kind of stupid answer is that?
Yeah.
So we're going to see if this carries on.
And I also, I also hope that I'm wrong.
I also hope that I'm wrong that they don't continue down this road.
You know what I mean?
I want to be hopeful with you too, but you and you see the conversations.
You see what happens on there.
You see what social media is doing.
And I'm seeing it.
It's not.
The apparent need to make cover for one guy is strong.
It's very strong.
It doesn't make any sense to normal people.
It's going to be hard for a long time.
And I think it's going to be hard for these people in the future as we're watching their party rip apart because some of them are showing the integrity.
Some are like, I'm out.
But for one guy, like you said, it's crazy.
Yeah.
It's hard to watch.
So there's a couple other factors of why, very particularly why we have as a society and our collection of psychologists and sociologists have teamed together in societies to have meetings where they discuss these things and talk about why we move the age of sexual intercourse up, Particularly when it comes to.
In most countries now we have sort of like a graduated system where we will sort of it's okay for people who are younger, kind of the 14 13, 14 age, if they're engaging in this kind of with each other in a similar age, but not with people who are older, because we recognize the, the uh um, the way in which,
if we allow that older people take advantage of that, and that's the thing that we try to stop the, the using of people right makes sense and this is how.
This is a way that we found to do it.
And i'm not even sure like i'm not a psychologist, i'm not a sociologist, I haven't studied any of those things at all i'm not sure that this is necessarily the golden method.
It's the method we've come up with and it's, we feel, better than the previous methods, which is as good as we can do for now.
Maybe we'll come up with a better one 10 years from now and we'll do that one instead.
Look at this as a dark age.
I don't know.
Maybe hopefully, because if it's a better method, we should want that right, like uh, but there's a couple phrases it can go the wrong way oh yeah, yeah.
Well, that's why we're having this conversation, because we want to start getting hands on the rope to haul back, to stop it from going the wrong way.
Yes um, so letting this go the way that they seem to be pulling it toward.
There's uh, a couple other factors.
So there's the illusion of consent.
Obviously we we we touched on that in that we don't feel that we should have children applying this.
We should teach it to them, but we shouldn't have them have to have consent where they consent to this.
In that way, we should let them learn it their own, learn it themselves.
But there's also a couple other factors.
There's learned compliance, which is the idea that if people are in their behavior to you, instructing the situation that you and your body and yourself are meant for this particular activity, then that's a situation where you tend to learn to comply with society in that way.
And this is sort of a factor that led to situations where women in general in the past kind of had much less fulfilling lives because they had fewer choices.
They were from very young ages learning that society was teaching them that they weren't for anything other than being wives, essentially.
And we'd like them to have, I would like women to have more fulfilling lives, right?
Right, of course.
Of course.
And there's also learned boundaries, which is that if from a young age, you are learned that your boundaries on your life and your body are limited, then when other people step to take advantage of that, you're much less likely to assert yourself and, you know, stand up for yourself in that way.
You're much more likely to be taken advantage of.
You're much more vulnerable.
And again, this greatly limits and greatly endangers women.
All of it is terrible.
All of it is terrible.
We need to make sure that when people ask this question, we're able to answer that there's a, there's not just one answer.
There's a host of answers why we move this up and we try to make sure that we're not taking advantage of people this way and bringing them down these darker paths.
I think that's why, Chill, children having sex education is really key.
I'm a big proponent for it.
I think all schools should have it.
And I honestly think it should be a consistent thing they learn, not just like that one time they get it.
Yeah, that's a two-week period or something in the seventh grade or a big gradual thing and it needs to start really young.
And I know that's the big kicker for the right.
They get really angry at this conversation because, oh, you want to teach our kids at like kindergarten.
And I'm just thinking, you know, there's a great deal of children who don't know they're being assaulted or abused because they don't know, like you said, they just don't know those things and nobody's taught them yet.
So a lot of people don't know that that's happened until they get to that, you know, that point and they get to school and finally some safe zone happens and they like their teacher and they're like, teacher's like, you know, that's bad.
You're nobody's supposed to do this or, oh no, I'm not following you to the bathroom like your parents or something, you know, the things that you do.
So key.
And I think what your point you just made is it kind of cements that importance of kids all being able to have access to sex education, you know, without their parents' access, in my opinion.
And I'm a mom and I still think so, you know?
Yeah, because I think I, I, I'm a stepdad.
I wasn't a dad.
And when I was a stepdad, they were already well into their teens.
And but I, if I had had kids, I think that a professional should teach them about the sex education.
When I was young, I had parents, but they let a professional do the sex education at school because they're trained.
They know more about how to do this.
And I think that's a good way to do that.
I like your idea of having it more often, like every year maybe for several years or all through high school, maybe.
Even just a little thing.
It doesn't need to be a big thing.
You know, we don't have to have the real conversation till the 12 and 14, like we're saying sixth and eighth grade.
And, you know, that makes sense, but to have those conversations starting young, you know.
Hey, no one goes in the bathroom with you.
That's boundaries.
Yeah, just about boundaries.
Yeah.
It's incredibly important.
Yeah, that's right.
Sorry, I deterred you.
No, no, no, you didn't deter me at all.
You're fine.
We have a lot of disingenuous people weaponizing this.
And I like what you said about sex education because it reminded me that they also are disingenuous about that.
They strawman that all the time.
They say about sex education that it's an attempt to teach children how to have sex, which isn't, it's not an instruction of how to do the thing.
It's an instruction of how to avoid the dangers.
It's about learning about disease and about what activities are harmful.
And again, about boundaries and how to assert yourself.
Consent.
Yeah, that's right.
So don't let anyone strawman this.
Call that out when you see it.
That's not what sex education in school is.
But I think it's also useful at this time to highlight some of the fallacious arguments that they're likely to make.
So first of all, we saw it here with this clip.
Gaslighting or like weaponizing a lack of knowledge about psychology, sociology, and how this works, which is everyone is vulnerable to this.
I mean, when I saw that, I knew that Dean Withers was flat-footed and he didn't know.
But I also didn't have, like, I had to look a bunch of stuff up for this because I had to get educated.
I had to be able to get the Cliff's notes out.
And I had to look up a bunch of stuff, right?
Like probably most everyone would have to because it is complicated, right?
You can't just let someone do this to you and confuse you in this way and then try to claim an air of superiority because, you know, oh yeah, look at this asshole.
He thinks he listens to the mainstream media.
Like he thinks that, you know, he just listened to all his teachers like a sheeple.
Like, you know, he thinks that child rape is wrong.
Can you believe that?
Like, pound daring.
Yeah.
Like, put him next to the Nazi and punch them both.
Like, what the hell?
I don't normally advocate for violence, but I'm almost, this one feels like it's on that verge.
Like they need to have some kind of consequences for doing that.
This feels like a step too far.
I feel like we need some sort of not organized and like, you know, army on army violence, but like some sort of soft measures kind of thing.
So another one they're going to do is whataboutism?
Like the other side also did this, so you should think this is okay.
So like this happens all the time with things like, oh, I understand you're on the left.
Well, did you know that Clinton also did things like this or Bill Gates did this or whatever.
So this is in relation to Epstein.
happens all the time with Epstein.
This is what aboutism, call it out as whatabautism.
But also, if Clinton is found to have done a bunch of stuff, prosecute him.
Why would I care?
I also wouldn't care because I'm from Canada, but like if the Prime Minister of Canada was found to have doing this, then you damn right, we would prosecute him.
We don't treat our politicians with such reverence that we won't get rid of them and replace them as soon as they're useless to us.
That's a thing that I hope the U.S. finally eventually gets back to is realizing that whoever's in charge is replaceable and they need to know it too.
Yeah, so yeah.
You want Bill Gates?
Take him.
Who's Bill Gates to me?
Why would I care?
Like, Bill Gates has done for you.
Yeah.
Every one of them is replaceable.
And that was the point.
That's the entire point is they're all supposed to be replaceable.
I think I'd be worried about, you know, random billionaire ex who's supposedly on the left like me or whatever.
Like, I don't care.
Take him.
He's just one guy.
He's one vote.
We want one voter, have him.
And he did something bad.
Well, then prosecute him.
That's how it works.
So the other one is the one we saw here, which is in this clip, which is goalpost movement.
But I also saw this in my responses when I was saying words about this on Twitter, which is that other countries or jurisdictions have a lower age of consent.
And therefore, they don't think this is a problem.
So why should we?
I think in some cases, some people are misreading what some of those other jurisdictions do.
Canada's list of age restrictions is a little bit complicated.
Like I say, it's a graduated system.
As a person who's under 18 gets older, they are allowed to have relations with someone who's within a certain age range of them.
And this is a thing we allow without calling it statutory rape.
It's still possible that it's rape because obviously consent is a factor and we need to understand this.
But people might look this up and say, well, in Canada, it's 16.
Well, it's 16 if you're within five years of 16.
So like if you're, you know, Bill Gates, you can't have sex with a 16 year old in Canada.
That's a crime because Bill Gates is more than five years from 16 years old.
And that's how we, that's how we do it.
That's the actual Canadian law.
And whether people say it should be less than five years, well, then make that argument and then we'll go to the we'll go to parliament and change it.
Like if that's your argument, say that.
But don't say, but I mean, you know, right.
It's better than, it's better than no law.
I mean, like you said, there can be, it can be improved maybe.
Maybe.
Yeah, but don't say that it's, you know, anyone over 15 in or 15 or older in France is allowed to have sex and therefore maybe this is all just, you know, morally ambiguous somehow.
Like that's garbage.
That's garbage arguments.
Throw that right out.
Tell them right where to go.
That's goalpost movement.
None of these things happened in France.
And some of them happened on Epstein's island, but that means that, you know, like whatever laws apply there, I guess.
But then he still trafficked these underage girls for the purpose of this.
And that's the crime.
Trafficking is still the crime, right?
Like we have to, we have to call this what it is.
There are crimes here.
And yeah, if you partook in that, then you become part of that.
You become part of the trafficking for that purpose because you also went there to do that.
Whoever is on that list of people who went to Epstein's Island to do that.
Looking at you, Prince Andrew.
So another one's going to come up.
So another one that's going to come up is the naturalistic fallacy.
So if this goes on for very long, some asshole, just like this asshole did to Dean Withers, is going to come up with, in the animal kingdom, there is no consent or age limit on sexual activity.
And we're basically just animals.
So like, what are we doing here?
Well, a couple things, right?
Yeah, we're animals, but we're also civilized.
We have agreed that we live in a civilization and we have laws and we have rules and we also have communication in which we can communicate those rules with each other and teach them to all the other people who live in our society with us.
And therefore, we feel that we have, again, risen above the animal kingdom in this way.
And unless you want to just be every animal for themselves and I get to, you know, if you say that, then that's the same argument as I get to beat you with a club and take all your stuff because that's also okay in the animal kingdom.
So where are we going with this?
Apply it to everything and see if it makes sense.
I mean, fair.
At this point, I mean, the faster person, it's just be fine with that, right?
Well, stronger.
Well, that's what it is in the animal kingdom.
Who's ever stronger and faster and gets there first, right?
So if someone's making that argument, see if they're okay with getting shanked for their wallet, right?
Like.
Yeah.
So the last one on my list of ones that I'm sure we'll hear is the Nirvana fallacy, that there's no way to prevent every instance of this.
And therefore, we shouldn't bother to prevent or prosecute any single instance of it.
This Nirvana fallacy is used a lot.
It's used for things like denying climate change, that if one single measure, if one single solution can't solve all of climate change, then we shouldn't use that single measure.
Try again to a different one that's going to be the one thing we have to do because I don't want to deal with this climate thing very often.
I just want to do one simple thing and then it just changes it all and then I'm good and I can go back to, you know, whatever I was doing before.
And this is a thing that's going to come up where it's like, well, you know, that doesn't really fix everything about this problem.
Like maybe we shouldn't do that.
Do all the things that fix the problem.
Fix it five different ways.
And it doesn't even matter if you didn't even need the fifth.
Do it anyway.
Because if one of those other ones fails, you still have the fifth one.
This is an important one to fix.
Like, what are we, what are you thinking here?
This isn't like a hockey game where you're only allowed certain men on the ice.
If you were allowed to have as many men on the ice as possible, you'd put them all on the ice.
Yeah.
It would be much harder to score.
Of course you would.
So put all the backstops in place that you could to stop these bad things from happening, these very bad things from happening.
Like, what are we doing?
Sorry, I got a little heated there.
It's okay.
You know, it's a topic that you should kind of be heated.
I mean, well, I do get a little, yeah, it's, yeah.
Of course we get heated.
Of course, it's, we're talking about protecting children.
Yeah.
I engage with these people all the time.
I get in these fights.
I know you see it too, but it's frustrating though, because they're just out of control.
And it's why this conversation happened, why I know we wanted to have this conversation because you know what's going to come up.
They're going to be the arguments.
They're going to come across our timelines.
We're all going to see it in the feed and it's going to be like, how are you guys trying to justify this?
How are you going to try to circle this around?
And I think I mentioned this to you.
I'm concerned that the future is that because they're so willing to protect this guy, that they're going to start trying to lower the consent in the red states.
And I mean, they already do that, but I think they're going to do that in exponentially higher rates now.
I think they're going to keep trying because if they could get that away before all of these names come out, they may be able to protect some of their friends, their selves, other people.
You know, like, how are you going to prosecute Jeffrey's 17 other friends?
Because, you know, maybe we lowered the age to 16 now or 14 and the victims were that.
So that was one of the concerns that I've had.
It's not a concern that has no precedent.
Oh, I know.
Five years ago, it would have been unimaginable to me that you would undo, really undo Roe v. Wade, but it did.
It got undone.
And it's had terrible consequences already for a lot of people.
It's awful.
I have a concern.
The one that caught my breath and made me think panic a little bit was like I agree with you.
The age of consent and the removal of it or the lowering of it or whatever, moving that marker backward instead of further forward, that's a bad one.
But the audience that we're dealing with is not a stable audience.
These aren't stable men.
A lot of them are younger men.
There's a large cohort of them are incel related.
A lot of incel ideas in here.
So you have a population of men who are already angry at women because of their lack of ability to couple in that way, right?
The way that they think is the way to do it, whatever that looks like for them, and they're unable to do it.
They're involuntarily celibate and they feel that women owe them something.
Well, what happens once you take that group that's already got that, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous set of ideas, and then you say, yeah, add this one into the mix on the pile, this question of, is it even bad to include younger, younger women among this?
Like, what, what do we have once we mix that in with the powder keg that's already there?
That's the one that stopped my breath and went, okay, that's the set of ideas that really lights the thing on fire and makes it blow up.
Like, I worry about that a lot.
With, you know, do some of these like maybe some people who are fans of Dean Withers listen to that clip and some people say those things and maybe they get confused about some things.
But like much more are the people who would agree with the guy who called into Dean Withers' show.
And then that group say, yeah, yeah, maybe the problem is I've just been going for women who are too old.
Like maybe it should be.
Yeah, yeah, like maybe, yeah.
And yeah.
And then I think, holy shit.
Yeah.
That's the one that makes me panic.
That's the one that we got.
We have to stomp on that one with both feet.
We have to, you know, yeah, it's wrong.
Yeah, it's wrong.
We all finally agree on this one thing.
It's wrong.
Don't do that.
Don't think.
Don't even ask that question because that leads a bunch of people who have already been reality unaligned to consider even more dangerous things, very, very dangerous things.
Yeah, it's hard to get people to align with the same concept of moral consideration, maybe.
Like who qualifies to be considered human enough to care about or whose suffering is enough to care about.
It's kind of weird to circle back to the compassion thing that just really has to be a part of every human.
And we don't really get a future society if we allow pedophilia to perpetuate.
We just, it doesn't, it doesn't end well because we know that it's a consistent issue.
We know that it perpetuates a child who was sexually assaulted as a child is more likely to sexually assault another child.
We know rest of development.
I mean, we understand these things psychologically now, not thoroughly because of the taboo.
And it is harder to get these people to come forward and talk to a psychologist because of the taboo.
All of us kind of hate them.
But, you know, it's a problem.
So the circling around with it, it's just frustrating to watch it for me, like, and have these conversations.
And it's nice that we're doing this because we need to break out of that dehumanization that they're doing.
We need to bring that back and give somehow moral consideration to all people, like all women, all children.
Yeah.
Consent.
Consent should be moral consideration for every living thing, you know?
Yeah.
So I'm going to do this.
I wasn't sure if we have time, but I think we do.
I have a second clip.
It's the what you and I in conversation would probably call what's now the info the the infamous Megan Kelly clip.
I was wondering if you were going to talk about that and I forgot to mention that.
So I'm glad you're bringing that in.
Yeah, yeah.
So for anyone who might think that this is a one-off, yeah, some crank called in a Dean Withers show, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Obviously, this isn't a widespread set of ideas and anyone's really, you know, walking back this age or minimizing these things in any way.
We'll put on stage.
This was Megan Kelly, and I believe this was three nights ago talking on her show about this.
here we go.
No, well, it's muted.
I need to, okay, now, now, here we go.
As for Epstein, I've said this before, but just as a reminder, I do know somebody very, very close to this case who is in a position to know virtually everything.
Not everything, but virtually everything.
And this person has told me from the start, years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile.
This is this person's view who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type.
Like he liked 15-year-old girls.
And I realize this is disgusting.
I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse for this.
I'm just giving you facts.
That he wasn't into like eight-year-olds, but he liked the very young teen type that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby.
And that is what I believed.
And that is what I reliably was told for many years.
And it wasn't until we heard from Pam Bondi that they had tens of thousands of videos of alleged, forgive me, they used to call it kiddie porn.
Now they call it child sexual abuse material on his computer that for the first time I thought, oh, no, he was an actual pedophile.
I mean, only a pedophile gets off on young children abuse videos.
She's never clarified it.
I don't know whether it's true.
I have to be honest.
I don't really trust Pam Bondi's word on the Epstein matter anymore.
Yeah.
So I don't know what's true about him, but we have yet to see anybody come forward and say, I was a like a, I was under 10.
I was under 14 when I first came within his per view.
Look, it's, you can say that's a distinction without a difference.
There is a difference.
There's, there's a difference between a 15-year-old and a five-year-old.
Okay.
Yeah.
So thoughts.
Thoughts.
I mean, I have.
You've obviously.
I'm a 15-year-old and a five-year-old.
I know the difference.
I know there's a difference.
I guess I got really annoyed when I was still annoyed.
Yeah, really annoyed.
Yeah.
You know, because you're looking at it and you're like, I mean, she, I'll give her this.
At least she said somewhere in the middle, it's disgusting.
So, I mean, there's your grace in that whole conversation was you did say it's disgusting.
So I'm going to try to give you that little grace, but the truth is you literally just justified on TV.
What you told was barely legal, mind you.
I have a 14-year-old daughter that she is nowhere near barely legal.
There's years ago.
I need to make sure I clarify that because she was incorrect there.
Barely legal would be like 18.
That's that's a sort of a one year, like 18.
Well, yeah, like barely legal.
The terminology came, I think it was Penthouse was trying to skirt the edge of what's available and make something seem more racy than it was or something.
And so they came up with that term.
I think it was maybe the 80s or 70s or something.
And the idea was it was something where someone in the magazine was legal, but barely legal.
That was what it was.
And a lot of people looked at it.
I think it's still kind of this thing that skirts an edge that's a little gross sometimes, you know, because the idea is that they still look younger than the legal that they are.
And that's the point.
And it's like, well, that's also kind of cringe.
Like, I don't think you should do that.
I think, you know, legal.
It is legal, but I think it's a bad idea.
Like, not everything that's legal should be a thing that we do all the time.
Like, I think that it's still a bad idea.
Okay.
So, you know, Penthouse sold a bunch of magazines.
I, whatever.
I don't care.
Bob Giottione Sr., who cares?
But 15 is not barely legal.
No.
Not even close to it.
It's not even barely illegal.
It's actually illegal.
That's what it is.
It's actually illegal.
That's definitively illegal.
Definitively illegal.
Like to couch it in that term that's the wrong term to use provides cover here.
It makes it seem like it's, well, how bad was it really?
Right?
She made it sound like he didn't do anything wrong.
Because when you say barely legal, you are implying he did not break the law.
He's just a man.
How much strength could he possibly have to withhold himself from these attractive people that he's obviously attracted to?
I mean, he has only so much strength.
Like that's what that's what it comes off as.
It's like, you know, he was attracted to them.
Can you blame him?
Like, what kind of garbage argument is that?
That's stupid.
Well, you can't fry him.
He's dead.
But yeah, it's what the hell is this?
You're providing cover.
You're providing cover for this activity.
The way it started, too, it started as a way that sounded like she was welcoming it and warming up to it.
My friend, who was friends with him, said it wasn't a big deal.
It's kind of the vibe I was getting.
Like, maybe I maybe that's not what she was saying, but did you kind of get that?
Like, I felt like she was saying a little bit.
Yeah, yeah.
So I told me it wasn't that serious because he said what she's also admitting is that she knew about this a long time ago as well, which is also a thing that we online haven't skewered her enough for, actually.
Because like we have with Elon Musk, right?
When he, when Elon Musk came and said that Trump was in the Epstein files, the internet immediately said, so you worked with him anyway, even though he's clearly involved with all this nasty stuff with underage women.
Like, that means you were okay with that as long as you got a benefit from it.
And now you're no longer getting a benefit from it.
You're okay shoving him under the bus.
That's what it means.
But what she's saying here is that she knew about this from a source and she basically didn't really say anything about it because she's well, it wasn't, it wasn't eight-year-olds.
It wasn't like it was really, really young.
It's not like they were prepubescent or anything.
Like that's what she's saying.
And that's, oh, I don't know how to say this in words that are strong enough without just shouting, but that's fucking wrong.
It is fucking wrong.
What she's describing is still fucking illegal.
It is.
And I'll say this: and being a female, I do recall being young, and I do remember there was a stigma, and there was a lot of girls.
And it was a different thing to be a young woman dating an older guy.
And it is possible that Megan Kelly herself is somebody who experienced that and didn't realize that maybe when she was 15, maybe she had an older boyfriend.
Because I knew plenty of girls that were doing that.
And, you know, they didn't a lot of times realize until they were an adult you were groomed or you were taken advantage of or that wasn't okay.
And I mean, I'm not justifying what she's saying.
I'm just saying that it's entirely possible that she has justified it to herself because she did that.
Does that make sense?
Maybe that was her own experience too.
I can't see how an adult thought that was okay.
As of now, we call that move the Milo Yiannopoulos.
Yeah.
Yeah.
A thing that happened to him that he just happened to think wasn't that bad because, you know, he felt it was fine when it happened to him.
And people had to tell him, no, not that that actually was fucked up.
So it's not good for anyone.
Yeah, yeah.
You think you're fine, but I'm on the outside looking in at you, Milo Yiannopoulos, and that you're not fine, dude.
You are not fine.
It's not good.
You know, maybe that was the thing that fucked you up.
Maybe it was something else, but like, you're not fine, really.
Seek help.
Yeah.
So, but that earned Megan Kelly the nickname, and I'm sure it's going to stick now, but it's the nickname Megan R. Kelly.
I think it's very, very clever.
I didn't come up with it.
I just saw it.
Someone else came up with it.
This is how it works.
But it's sticking now.
So yeah, I think we talked this out.
Let's wrap it up.
Where can people find you and your content online, Jamie?
Oh, I'm, I had to think about that.
I'm under the, right?
I'm like, I don't know.
The comfort stick.
You can just look up the comfort stick.
I'm on X and TikTok on there.
Yeah.
And I'm on Twitter, Spencer G. Watson.
And if anyone has any questions, comments, complaints, concerns about anything they hear on this podcast, you want to correct us on anything we got wrong, send that email to truthunrestricted at gmail.com.