Both of these groups told us the same lie.

They said they were protecting the children. They said they were standing against predators. They said the danger was the “gay agenda,” the queers, the outsiders—the people they already hated.

And yet, somehow, when the predators show up looking familiar, powerful, straight, and protected, the outrage disappears.

That’s not irony. That’s the system working exactly as designed.

Because while they were screaming about imaginary threats, they were actively shielding real ones.

I keep hearing people say, “I don’t get what they’re saying about Robert. I’m still going to step in the name of love.”The same way folks now say, “Why don’t y’all just get over the files? Everybody was freaky back then.”

That’s not confusion. That’s heteronormative hypocrisy.

It’s the kind of hypocrisy that says abuse only matters when it disrupts power—but becomes “context” when it protects it.

Let’s be honest: they are perfectly comfortable with children being preyed on, as long as the predator fits their idea of normal. Straight. Male. Respected. Connected. As long as the harm happens quietly and preserves the hierarchy.

And if we’re really being real, this is how a lot of false solidarity is built between these two communities. Not on shared values—but on shared silence. On an unspoken agreement that women, children, and queer people are acceptable collateral damage if it means maintaining access to power.

How do you build “unity” by sacrificing the most vulnerable?

We’ve seen this before.

We watched it happen with R. Kelly. His victims were called fast. They were accused of lying, chasing money, being failed by their parents. Now we’re watching the exact same script play out again—just with different names and much stronger protection.

What Megyn Kelly and others are doing for Epstein is not new. It’s the same defense strategy: minimize, distract, muddy the water, and move the goalposts until accountability disappears.

And then comes the most disturbing question of all:

“Are we talking about 15-year-olds or 5-year-olds?”

The moment you start asking that, you’ve already told on yourself.

Nothing says pedophile apologist louder than trying to draw moral distinctions between abused children. Harm does not become acceptable because a victim was closer to adulthood. Abuse does not become negotiable because it’s inconvenient to confront.

When you start delineating like that, what you’re really saying is: some children matter less.

And now I’m hearing this twisted logic float around: because some people who look like him get away with it, equality must mean he should get away with it too.

No.

Research Over Mesearch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Equality is not shared immunity from consequences.

Lock both of their asses up.

One was connected to more powerful people. One wasn’t. That’s the only difference. Both created victims. Both exploited children. Both are demons to me.

If your morality collapses the moment accountability threatens someone you identify with, then you were never protecting children in the first place.

You were protecting power.

And as always, the kids are the ones who pay for it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe