Letter to Officer Tatum Regarding the Police Murder of Tyre Nichols

     [Author's Note:

     This letter was written as a response to an episode of "The Officer Tatum Show" which aired on A.M. 560 in Chicago, on January 27th, 2023.
     Officer Tatum is the radio name of Brandon Tatum, a former police officer and football player from Texas.

     The letter is in reference to Tyre Nichols, an African-American man who was severely beaten by five black police officers in Memphis, Tennessee, on January 7th, 2023. He died in the hospital, from his injuries, three days later.
     The officers involved - Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr., and Justin Smith - have been charged with second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct, and official oppression.

     This letter was written before viewing the videotape - released on January 27th - showing Nichols's beating.]

      Hi Officer Tatum. I heard you talk about Tyre Nichols on your show on Friday.

     I was glad to hear you extend your condolences to his family. And I extend my condolences to them as well.

     But please understand: Tyre Nichols’s brother wants these officers dead.
     http://nypost.com/2023/01/28/brother-of-tyre-nichols-says-he-hopes-all-five-cops-die/

     That might sound extreme, but if they’re convicted of murder, and given the death penalty, it would not be outside the realm of lawful possibilities.

     You said on Friday that “it’s possible” that Tyre Nichols might have done something that caused him to “get what’s coming to him”.

     And I agree… but only because anything is possible.

     It's also possible that these officers decided to pull someone over for a routine traffic stop, and then provoke and incite and aggravate Nichols until he became upset enough to seem like he was resisting, when what he actually was, was afraid for his life.

     A black man who was arrested recently, insisted on pulling over in a well-lit area, instead of where the officer wanted him to. He parked his car, and then ran away from it, explaining what he was doing and why: He did this in order to avoid possibly being murdered in the dark without anyone to witness his death.

     Did he act unreasonably?

     You said on Friday that “people should just comply” and they won’t get killed by officers.

     Sir, “submit to me, or I will make it worse on you” is the ideology of a hostage-taker, or worse.
     I know you're not a hostage-taker, but you are defending people who terrorize people into submission - often without even informing them of what crime they are being suspected of committing - and then blame their victims for not being able to submit quickly or completely.

     On June 4th, 2020 in Buffalo, New York, a 75-year-old man named Martin Gugino was innocently standing on a public sidewalk during a protest (and within his legal rights), was clubbed on the head by a police. He fell to the ground and started bleeding out, sustaining a skull fracture. Miraculously, he survived.
     http://abcnews.go.com/US/75-year-man-shoved-ground-buffalo-protest-files/story?id=76062143

     Clearly - and I suspect that you would agree - this was a case of police brutality, and there is nothing that the old man could have done to avoid being clubbed.

     But have you heard of Daniel Shaver? In 2016, in a hotel in Arizona, Shaver was placed under arrest, for having a gun. Not pointing or aiming it, or threatening anyone with it, or using it. Just having it. Someone in the hotel had called the police on him, simply for having it in his possession.

     The police made him crawl on his knees towards them, giving him a series of instructions that was so complicated, he could not possibly obey all of them.

     The police shot him to death twenty feet away from his family.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8

     What more could Daniel Shaver have done, to comply?

     You say "99 percent of police officers are not bad apples". I agree. But if that's true, then why shouldn't that mean we are free to disobey police officers' orders one percent of the time?

     Tell me: Are we always supposed to obey police officers’ orders?

     What about when the orders are unlawful? Do civilians have to comply with illegal orders?

     What about when it’s a corrupt police officer, and he’s committing entrapment, by instructing someone to break the law in front of him, so he can have an excuse to arrest them?

     A female police officer recently went on TikTok and said “If you’re in front of us, and you don’t get out of the way, we will find something to pull you over and arrest you for", giving a failed turn signal as an example.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8icJ-6AzsE

     They are looking for reasons to arrest us. But not just for failing to signal our turns and for having broken taillights.
     They want more criminals. More criminals keep the prisons full, and provide endless contracts for companies providing resources and construction materials for such prisons.
     And - as Ayn Rand observed - more laws are passed every day, which make what were previously law-abiding people into common criminals.

     You asked on Friday, “What would be the point” of imprisoning the five officers who beat Tyre Nichols to death, because putting them in prison would not bring him back to life.

     That is ridiculous. Do we refrain from imprisoning civilians who murder other civilians, just because putting the murderers in prison will not bring their victims back to life? No.
      We put the murderers in prison (if we can convict them) because we know that the victims' families want closure and justice. And after a traumatic incident like losing a family member, they not only want closure and justice, but need them.

     You cannot say that you are “tough on crime” at the same time that you are vehemently defending the right of a person to commit murder as long as they first get hired by some (read: any) American police department.
     Being hired by an American police department does not make a person immune from committing a crime.
     Officer Frank Serpico arrested his first fellow police officer when he discovered that the guy was not only "on the take" from criminals (i.e., receiving bribes to refrain from making arrests); he murdered a police officer before getting re-hired as a cop in Serpico's jurisdiction.
     We don't just need to "get rid of the bad apples". We need to turn the good apples into great apples; into Frank Serpicos.
     But how many "good cops", walking the beat today, are Serpicos? Probably not even one percent of them; judging by how infrequently a "good cop" succeeds in preventing police beatings from going too far.

     I feel like you’re trying to have it both ways. We cannot extend our condolences to the family, while saying there might have been a good reason to take this man’s life, in the street, without a trial.

     And you cannot be a Christian at the same time that you can excuse the taking of a human life by anyone other than God, or else "thou shalt not kill" means nothing.
     When five armed police officers vastly outnumber one unarmed man, any and all attempts should be made to de-escalate things - and avoid violence, rather than to provoke and incite the arrestee - before resorting to deadly force.
     To borrow a phraseology about resorting to war: Deadly force should be used only as the "last, last, last option". And only if the suspect is threatening the use of violence without being provoked by the officers into doing so, only after less violent alternatives are attempted and fail, and only during a lawful arrest.

     In 1899, a Native American man named John Bad Elk shot a police officer to death. The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court found – in a unanimous decision – that he was within his rights to defend himself. That’s because the police officer pulled his weapon first and tried to murder John Bad Elk during an unlawful arrest.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Elk_v._United_States

     In late 1900, it was illegal, in all states, for police officers to murder people during unlawful arrests.
     But several decades later, New Jersey became the first state to pass a statute stating the opposite. Thirteen more states passed similar laws, which means that right now, it is only legal to resist unlawful arrest in fourteen states.

     Why should this be the case? Why should people in 36 states and the District of Columbia be required to comply with unlawful – that is, illegal – orders?

     Unless getting shot to death by the police the only way to get to Heaven, there is no logical answer.

     We must make it legal to use deadly force to resist police officers’ attempts to murder us during unlawful arrests. If we don’t, then we do not have a civilized society, nor do we have the rule of law.

     With the judge, the prosecutor, and (sometimes) the public defender all being employed by the state, there is virtually no chance of a fair trial. This virtually guarantees that police officers accused of crimes will be treated more leniently than they deserve.

     That is why all cases of suspected murder by police officers should be reviewed not only by independent commissions, but non-governmental independent commissions.

     We must not continue to simply give police officers discretion as to who deserves to live, and who deserves to be murdered in the streets.

     We have the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, which recognize the right to be secure in our persons and effects, until we are told what crime we are suspected of committing. People have the right to go free on their own recognizance, as long as they are not actually informed that they are under suspicion of a crime and placed under arrest.
     [Note: The word "arrest" literally means "stop"; a person may be detained prior to handcuffing if they are ordered to stop by police.]

     We must not delude ourselves into thinking that it's fine to murder people in the street - for "resisting" - when they are only trying to block some of the officers' blows, in order decrease the damage to their own bodies.

     And we certainly must not arrest people for resisting arrest, when they were not being arrested for a crime in the first place.

     People have the right to go to trial before they are punished. Tyre Nichols was murdered 200 feet away from his own house. He could easily have been allowed to return to his family.

     We cannot allow people to be murdered in the streets with no trial, and then simply say “let the courts deal with it”. We have tried that.

     The courts allowed countless murderer police officers to go free before the George Floyd / Breonna Taylor / Black Lives Matter protests of mid-2020.

     And since then, police murders of civilians have only gone up (at a rate of five percent per year).
     http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/us-police-killings-record-number-2022

     What does this tell us? “The protests didn’t work”? No.
     It tells us that the police want to hunt people down like animals (“like rabbits”, in the recent words of Chicago mayoral candidate Willie Wilson), and kill us for sport, to see if they can get away with it.

     Officer Tatum, people calling each other animals (the same way the Nazis called Jews "rats"), and then advocating for hunting others down as such, is not what a civilized society looks like.

     It is a recipe for more police violence, more submission to authority, and a more Naziesque and totalitarian society, every day, until nobody questions any longer that they are a slave, because they know it to be true.

     Until anybody who gets murdered by police, will be thought to have only been murdered because they were on drugs, didn’t comply, guilty, or – worst yet – just “wasn’t strong enough to survive”.

     Sadly, that day has already come.

     We need to face the truth: Some police officers are clubbing and tasing civilians for fun, to see who is strong enough to survive it. Let us not pretend that nobody has ever died from being tased.

     This is how the agenda of the social-Darwinists is being implemented. They believe that “the survival of the fittest” means the survival of the strongest (instead of what it really means: the survival of those who are most capable of adapting).

     This way of thinking allows the police to "shoot them all and let God" - or nature - "sort them out".

     That is why the defenders of police violence, are literally Nazi sympathizers.

     Or else they are completely unaware that the history of America’s use of eugenics – on Native Americans, and on black people in California and North Carolina and other states – actually predates Nazi Germany.

     Not only that, the Nazis learned eugenics from American eugenicists (many of whom identified as progressives).

     If someone said, “The Jews wouldn’t have gotten killed, or treated so harshly, if they had just complied”, we would not hesitate to call them a Nazi sympathizer. Anyone who has studied history knows that they tried to comply, but it didn’t work, because the people who held them captive were intent on their destruction.

     Why should we delude us into thinking that America has ditched its legacy of eugenics, Nazism, authoritarianism, and police brutality?
     Now, while police murders are increasing even more than before 2020? Now, while more than 99% of rapists never see prison time?
     http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/

     Who do we think we are trying to fool?

     We do not have a society, because we have neither freedom, nor law and order.

     What we have is something different: We have legalized violence. Violence is the state’s only rule, and violence is the state’s only tool.

     And, just as he who lives by the sword is doomed to die by the sword, so is the state.

     Living by the rule of violence alone, the state (and its defenders) have no logical, moral, nor consistent basis from which to object to being subjected to the same type of force which it employs to enforce its rule.

     Thus, the defenders of the state and its police, have no argument against the burning and destruction of police stations. To a government which is fundamentally based on violence, to be subjected to brutal force, is being beaten fair and square.




     [Post-Script:

     The day after the release of the Tyre Nichols beating rape, rumors are swirling that one of the reasons why these five police officers were allowed to get so violent, might stem from the fact that in 2021, a woman named Cerelyn "CJ" Davis became the chief of police in Memphis.

     Davis was fired from a police department in Atlanta, Georgia, after two detectives accused her of urging them not to investigate Terrill Marion Crane, who had committed statutory rape. Crane subsequently pleaded guilty to child pornography, and Davis was fired.
     It's possible that Davis is being blamed unfairly; perhaps because she's a woman, perhaps because some people are eager to connect the Tyre Nichols beating to sex crimes. But what's more likely is that, with Davis as the head of Memphis police since 2021, the privilege of Memphis police officers to commit crimes, has gone largely unchecked by their superiors.

     Read more about this story at the following address:
     http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/memphis-police-chief-cerelyn-davis-fired-from-a-previous-job-in-atlanta-after-botched-sex-crimes-investigation/ar-AA16Qsz4?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f6ea01c161e3498aa99c7960824f0f0d]

Written and published on January 28th, 2023

     Click the link below to see the complete list of articles and videos that I've published regarding policing, violent crime, and prisons:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2023/07/links-to-all-of-my-articles-and-videos.html

Celebrity Drag Kids: Are They Being Abused? (Infographic)

      In the four to six years since "underage celebrity drag queens" became a thing - and Desmond "Desmond is Amazing" Napoles and Nemis Quinn "Lactatia" Melancon-Golden rose to fame at the ages of ten and seven, respectively - people have been wondering about "where the line is", in regard to how much children should be allowed to experiment with cross-dressing within the view of adults.

     When Nemis (stage name "Lactatia") was asked onstage, in 2017 - by an adult male drag queen - whether it was his first time doing drag, he responded "Um... not really," to which the mostly male audience responded with laughter.

     [Note:

     Nemis began doing drag shows at the age of seven.

     http://www.mrctv.org/blog/gay-media-promotes-8-year-old-drag-queen]

     If that was funny, then it was funny for two reasons: 1) it's normal for little boys to want to wear girls' clothes, and so, people laughed because they could relate to what Nemis said; and 2) the audience probably wasn't full of pedophiles.

     The reason why the audience wasn't full of pedophiles, was that the audience showed up expecting adult male drag queens. They weren't expecting to see a child. Which means they didn't specifically come to that event knowing that there would be cross-dressing children there.

     But that was early-on in the course of the "famous child drag queen" phenomenon.

     But 2017 was then; this (2023) is now.

     What happened at that event with Nemis, is completely different from the kind of widespread, mass-scale, intentional grooming of children into experimenting with drag - in front of audiences full of adults who show up knowing that they will be seeing cross-dressing children - which is happening in some places today.

     In mid-2022, a Dallas-area gay bar called Mr. Misster held an event called "Drag the Kids to Pride", billed as a "family-friendly drag show".

     According to reporter Jay Wallis, "drag performers danced and walked down the aisle in the center of the room. At times, the dancers would take dollar bills from some of the children. Kids also walked with the dancers down the aisle...".

     The bar also featured a sign - inside the bar - which read, "It's Not Gonna Lick Itself", an obvious sexual entendre which appeared to refer to ice cream.

     http://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/dallas-family-friendly-kids-drag-show-mr-misster-protest/287-c7984c66-6141-4690-97b1-ec0b9882b4bb
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV50Fx8Kkt4
     The event was greeted with protests.

     [Note:

     Cauldron Ice Cream (located in Plano, Texas, a suburb of Dallas) has displayed the exact same "It's Not Gonna Lick Itself" sign inside of its physical business, and also displayed it as part of an advertisement on Facebook. Cauldron is a "naughty" sexually-themed ice cream store, which sells desserts bearing names such as "rim jobs" and "gang bangs".

     While Cauldron Ice Cream has not hosted any drag shows, nor any events involving children, parents should still think carefully before deciding to bring their children there, given the inappropriate names of the desserts, and the sign inside. Also, Cauldron is worth mentioning, because it's a possible explanation for the origin of the sign seen at Mr. Misster.

     Cauldron opened in Plano in 2019.
     Watch me explain the Mr. Misster scandal and its connection to Cauldron Ice Cream at the following address:
     http://rumble.com/v20bqwv-are-people-using-ice-cream-to-groom-children.html]

     Most recently - in December 2022 - a Christmas-themed drag show called A Drag Queen Christmas allowed people under the age of 18 to attend, and went on tour, reportedly doing 36 shows in 18 different locations.

     The show featured adult men humping each other in reindeer costumes to Christmas songs with dirty lyrics, the adult male host asking a child "Are you confused yet?", and a man with giant fake breasts with fake nipples visible.

     Reporters have commented that the vast majority of children present were brought there by single mothers, and that there were few (or zero) fathers present.

     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11541477/Armed-protestors-clash-outside-ages-Christmas-themed-drag-show.html
     http://texasscorecard.com/local/christmas-drag-show-for-kids-met-with-protests-in-san-antonio/
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjZ2rJY0GTA

     The most important question to ask, in all of this, is "Are these children actually being abused?"

     Well, in a strict legal sense... yes.
     Objectifying a child's body or sexuality - in a manner which causes them to become exploited in exchange for money - is one of the legal definitions of sexual exploitation of a minor. If it's on film, it may even be legally considered child pornography, or at least video evidence that grooming has occurred.

     But morally? Also yes.

     Children are not old enough to be capable of giving fully informed consent, regarding all of the potential negative consequences associated with things that could affect them for their entire lives; these things include being groomed for sex by adults, having sex, getting married, getting tattoos and intimate piercings, and undergoing forms of genital mutilation.
     They can't consent to allow their bodies, and sexuality, become the focus of adult conversation. The "no" becomes assumed (or, at least, should be assumed), due to the child's lack of ability to give a "yes" which would have fully informed consent to back it up.
     And the idea that parental consent (or judicial consent, for that matter) can override that presumed, automatic no on the part of the child, becomes difficult to argue, the younger the child being discussed. The idea that a child much younger than 16 or 17 years old could possibly consent to sex, grooming, marriage, or genital surgery, should be unthinkable.
     But right now, it is not, so here we are.



     One problem is that the police don't even know that what's happening is technically illegal, and don't know that they are within lawful authority to arrest the planners and financiers of events which aim to profit off of such grooming and exploitation.

     Wherever the law prohibits exploitation of a child for commercial purposes - i.e., everywhere - the local county police can enforce the relevant law as liberally as they please.

     This could include: 1) talking to children about their sexuality; 2) inviting children to dance in inappropriate manners and in inappropriate places (such as bars and places where "dancing poles" - a/k/a "stripper poles" are present); and 3) allowing children to (sometimes) wear revealing clothing, or even take off some of their clothes, in front of adults.

     Desmond "Desmond is Amazing" Napoles, took off some of his clothes, while dancing to the No Doubt song "I'm Just a Girl". And he did it while accepting dollar bills from the adult men who were present.

     However, Desmond's supporters were confused about this, because they falsely believed that "In order to be considered a stripper, you have to take off all of your clothes, and therefore what Desmond did was not stripping."

     But critics of what Desmond is being allowed to do, have noted that there are laws in some states which prohibit even adults from taking off all of their clothes. In their verbiage, those state laws treat partial and total removal of clothing the same; they are both forms of stripping. That's why they are (supposed to be) regulated as such.

     So is anybody coming to save these kids?

     Desmond, Nemis, and the kids who are admittedly "dragged" to events designed to hyperfocus on whatever few sexual thoughts these children might happen to have (which is apparently public information now)?

     They are trying to.

     Police officers having no idea that grooming kids like this, is illegal - and no idea why it's illegal - certainly doesn't help.

     Nor does it help that - on November 19th, 2022 - a man killed five people (and shot twenty-five others) inside of a gay night club called Club Q, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This shooting was blamed on homophobia and transphobia, because the shooter, Anderson Lee Aldrich, shot the club up "just as Club Q was wrapping up its weekly Saturday evening drag show."

     http://www.npr.org/2022/12/27/1138674412/drag-show-threats-bans-club-q-shooting
     http://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/opinion/colorado-springs-shooting.html
     http://isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/groomer-discourse-intensifies-and-neo-nazis-celebrate-in-wake-of-colorado-springs-attack/

     To the horror of the LGBTQ+ community, the accused shooter subsequently claimed to identify as nonbinary.

     It's not clear whether Club Q's November 19th, 2022 event was attended by children, nor is it clear whether children were permitted to attend the event. This makes it difficult to determine whether the shooter chose Club Q as his target because he thought they were hosting and sponsoring the grooming of children.

     Now - largely because of that shooting, and the way the mainstream media and the public interpreted it - people who show up to protest events where they suspect grooming is occurring, are treated as if they are armed, and want to bring violence.

     Well, could you blame them?

     When did it become wrong to use "violence" - not initiative or aggressive force, but the use of power and strength for defensive purposes - to protect vulnerable children who have no idea that what is happening to them is not only illegal, but also wrong? Children, who have not gained the ability to give informed consent to speak to total strangers about their gender identity (and perhaps even sexual preferences)?

     The use of force, in defense of those who are incapable of defending themselves, is not violence.

     The vast majority of the people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2020 were unarmed. So are most of the people who protest drag shows geared towards children.

     And an ordinary citizen would be no more wrong to bring a gun to a place where a child is being illegally exploited, than it would be wrong for a police officer to bring a gun to such a place in order to arrest the planners and financiers of the event.

     That's because someone who is crazy enough to objectify a child in front of a whole crowd full of people who paid to be there, might be crazy enough to abduct or molest a child, and perhaps even crazy enough to use a weapon - and use it - in order to facilitate such a kidnapping.

     Children are much smaller than adults are. They cannot obtain gun licenses. They need adults to protect them. Can you really blame someone for being prepared to defend himself while he attempts to collect evidence that children are being exploited?



     In one final, gut-wrenching twist of the narrative, "groomer" is now being described as an epithet specifically designed to equate gay and trans people to pedophiles, rather than an epithet describing all pedophiles who groom children in general, which is what it really is.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR5srUjgqr4
     This, the pedophile elite running mainstream media apparently hope, will lead to anyone and everyone caught using the word "groomer", being described as both a homophobe and a transphobe.

     All of this makes it very difficult to even mention the possibility that a particular gay or trans person abused a child, without being described as homophobic or transphobic.

     But the research must continue.



     We don't know much about the crimes committed against the multitude of particular children who attended A Drag Queen Christmas and other drag shows.
     Suffice it to say that they were spoken to in objectifying manners (i.e., hyper-focusing on sexuality while speaking to them), and groomed by adults through desensitization to inappropriate dancing and dress. Although the children's names are unknown.
     But, as for Desmond and Nemis, it's clear that they were groomed. But indecent exposure, drugging, and even rape are possibilities in their cases.

     In a late 2018 or early 2019 issue of Huck Magazine, Nemis appeared (pretending to gasp) in a photograph with a nearly-naked man.
     The man wore a loin cloth that was so small, it was barely visible, and displayed tattoos and nipple piercings. He also wore a wig and high-heeled shoes.
     Huck Magazine has since deleted all evidence, on the internet, that it published that article.

     The man in the photo is named Paul Jason Dardo. He was born in 1992, and goes by the stage name "Violet Chachki". Dardo uses she/her and they/them pronouns.
     Dardo won Season 7 of RuPaul's Drag Race, a show in which adult male drag queens compete in beauty pageants, dance contests, and make-overs.
     Thankfully, there is no evidence that Dardo abused Nemis either sexually or physically.
     But it's possible that Dardo's nearly exposing himself to Nemis could qualify as indecent exposure to a minor. Even though Dardo wore a loin cloth that covered his genitals, the case could easily be made that Dardo sought sexual gratification in the act of exposing 99% of his body to the child.

     As for Desmond, his case is much more grim, and unsettling.
     Police were apparently unresponsive after being flooded with calls, in 2019, that Desmond was exploited when he danced for money while engaging in partial stripping.
     An article from Buzzfeed, criticizing those who tried to get police involved, published a quotation from Desmond's mother Wendy: "They're basically saying queer kids equal pedophilia and sexuality. It's really quite disgusting they're seeing kids like this".
     http://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/desmond-is-amazing-child-drag-queen

     In 2018, Desmond - then ten years old - appeared on Episode #442 of the Pee-ew! web show, hosted by former New York "Club Kids" Michael Alig and Ernie Glam.
      In that video, Desmond appeared drugged. If he wasn't drugged, then he was at least very tired, as he could barely keep his eyes open. That could also be attributed to the large, heavy fake eyelashes he was wearing at the time, however.
     But also, in that video, while Michael Alig drank something from a pink cup, he asked someone off screen for more "tea". This prompted Ernie Glam to laugh. In the background, directly behind Desmond (who sat in between Alig and Glam), there was a painting hung up on the wall, that (according to YouTuber AnnaMae Renee) was painted by Michael Alig himself. That painting contained a little girl jumping rope, next to the letters "ROHYPN". These are the first six letters of the drug "rohypnol", commonly known as "roofies", and "the date-rape drug".
     These facts have led to speculation that Alig might have drugged Desmond with rohypnol.

     This concern that Alig potentially drugged Desmond is not without warrant, though, as Alig has long been known as the kind of person who drugs people.
     On an episode of Geraldo's The Geraldo Rivera Show, Michael Alig appeared - alongside fellow "Club Kid" Michael Musto (the Village Voice columnist) - in an episode about "Club Kids", the New York City scene of the 1980s and 1990s which was comprised of gay bars, discos, and drag events. In that episode, Geraldo accused Alig of giving his own mother a club drug without her knowledge.
     Additionally, Alig had Hepatitis-B, and invented a drinking game in which the loser had to drink from a glass that he had contaminated with Hepatitis-B.
     If you still don't think Michael Alig is untrustworthy after reading that, it is worthwhile to note that he was also a confessed and convicted murderer. He and then-roommate Robert Riggs murdered Andre "Angel" Melendez following a dispute about drug money.
     Alig was sentenced to 10-20 years in prison, and was released in prison in 2014.
     http://www.villagevoice.com/2014/05/16/lets-not-forget-michael-alig-brutally-murdered-and-dismembered-angel-melendez-then-bragged-about-it-for-months/

     Even if Desmond was not drugged - which seems unlikely, due to the above information - it was still potentially dangerous to allow Desmond to be around Michael Alig (being a murderer who drugged his own mother, and could potentially pass Hepatitis B to Desmond whether intentionally or unintentionally).
     And a person who's crazy enough to drug his own mother, and give people diseases for fun, is probably crazy enough to use said drugs to lure a child into a more vulnerable state. Ketamine and rohypnol were reportedly Alig's favorite drugs.

     This video, titled "Desmond is in Danger" - posted to YouTube in 2020 by AnnaMae Renee - explains the threats which Michael Alig, and Desmond's own mother Wendylou Napoles, might have posed to Desmond, while attending drag shows, while Desmond appeared in Episode #442 of the "Pee-ew" web show, hosted by Michael Alig and Ernie Glam:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7J-hW_GO6o


     During that episode, Ernie Glam presented Desmond with a stuffed panda toy, and a shirt with a panda face and black-and-white bars on it. It would be easy to argue that the black-and-white bars resembled prison bars. This is worth noting because "Panda eyes" is reputed to be a code phrase, used by pedophiles and/or other sexual predators, to refer to a victim of rape who has black eyes because they have been beaten by their rapist.
     The Desmond controversy is not the only sex scandal in which pandas have popped up; Lady Gaga has worn panda eyes, the stuffed bear in the Balenciaga child model scandal was a panda, and pandas are associated with Elvis Presley (whose wife was underage when they met, and possibly also when they married).

     Another possible code word - which connects Alig, Glam, and Lady Gaga - is "monster". Lady Gaga refers to her fans as "monsters" and her child fans as "little monsters". Michael Alig was the focus of the film Party Monster. Ernie Glam published a book called Dressing the Monster. The book, which is about fashion, was published in 2018, and bears the menacing subtitle "Party Clothes for the Club Kid Killer".
     http://www.amazon.com/Dressing-Monster-Party-clothes-killer/dp/1986485757
     

     In late December 2020 - two years after filming Episode #442 - Michael Alig died due to a drug overdose. Heroin and fentanyl were present in his system.
     This means that Ernie Glam is likely the only person alive (except, perhaps, Desmond's mother) who knows, for sure, whether Michael Alig drugged Desmond Napoles, and whether he molested him.


     It is not clear whether Desmond's mother Wendy has ever met Ernie Glam, or Michael Alig, or another transvestite male in whose presence Desmond mimed the snorting of a drug.
     But at some point, Wendy Napoles must have allowed Ernie Glam, Michael Alig, or both, to take temporary (not legal) "custody" of Desmond, for long enough to film the episode. Either that, or Wendy Napoles was present when the video was filmed.
     This means that, even if Wendy Napoles did not outright illegally decline to report sexual abuse of a child (which is a possibility), then she at least allowed her son to fall into the hands of people whom she reasonably should have known, would have been likely to abuse her son.
     The author of the video mentioned above, believes that Desmond's mother may have allowed Michael Alig to prey on her son (or, at least, risked it) as part of a vain effort to regain her youth, and/or get into what is left of the New York City club scene.
     Regardless of why she might have done it, if Desmond was molested or raped, then Wendy Napoles could - and should - be charged with reckless endangerment of her child. And, if she profited off of it, she could - and should - be charged with commercial exploitation of a child, and/or pimping (depending on the verbiage and definitions used in the jurisdictions in which those crimes may have occurred).


     What happened to Desmond Napoles - i.e., possible drugging, molestation, and rape - is certainly not typical of children who cross-dress. Especially not children who cross-dress without adults first giving them the idea to do it. [The best place or a child to cross-dress is where that child will have privacy.]
     But what happened to Nemis - i.e., being almost flashed, made to dance, and exposed to nudity - is typical of children who are exposed to cross-dressing by adults.
     Furthermore, the idea that "drag can be for kids too" is being used to mask the possible child drugging and child rape that might have happened to Desmond "behind the scenes" after filming for the Pee-ew! web show with Michael Alig and Ernie Glam.


     Drag can be for kids too. And there is nothing wrong with that idea, in and of itself.
     Unless and until you start getting adults involved. And unless and until events focusing on children's sexuality become so widespread and predictable, that they literally become profitable shows.
     At that point, pedophiles who want to see children dress in revealing clothing, can reliably predict where children will be groomed - or scantily-clad - for adults to watch, and where people will be off their guard about child protection.
     And that is where child predators will strike. Not solely because that's where people are more "tolerant", but because that's where people are least suspicious.



     Please see the infographic below, for more information about how the people mentioned above, are connected to each other, and to RuPaul.


     [Notes about the infographic:

     I do not intend to imply that Michael Musto is a pedophile.

     Nor do I intend to imply, with any certainty, that RuPaul is a pedophile.
     RuPaul said that he knew Alig, but didn't like him, and wrote in his first book that Alig spit into his mouth.
     On the other hand, RuPaul did briefly consider creating adult and child versions of his hit show RuPaul's Drag Race.
     http://www.out.tv/se_SE/news/rupaul-proposes-a-childrens-and-senior-version-of-drag-race/

     The subject of whether RuPaul (and/or his show) is grooming children, needs to be researched further, before any conclusions on that matter can be drawn.
     It is perhaps also worth noting that a former contestant of the show - Nina West (a male drag queen) - has written a book for children. The book is called The You Kind of You and it is about kindness.
     http://celebsecrets.com/drag-queen-nina-west-is-spreading-kindness-in-her-new-childrens-book/
     Additionally, there is a book, for children, about RuPaul. Written by Maria Isabel Sanchez Vegara, the book is called Little People, Big Dreams. It came out in 2020.
     http://forreadingaddicts.co.uk/new-releases/new-childrens-book-about-rupaul-will-teach-children-about-drag-and-the-power-of-being-yourself/
     It's unclear whether these books contain any material which could be described as questionable based on the books' target age groups.

     As for Geraldo, it wouldn't be a stretch to describe him as a "pedophile enabler". That's because, in 2020, he made statements defending Ghislaine Maxwell (Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice and girlfriend). He said that Maxwell - accused of sex trafficking minors - should get out on bail.
      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-geraldo-rivera-ghislaine-maxwell-bail-20200715-uso6xym3s5dh5lr3vapnujka7u-story.html



     Whether RuPaul and Geraldo are sympathetic towards child abusers or not, we should be asking ourselves, "Even if just a handful of people involved in drag are pedophiles, did we just accept the drugging and rape of a 10-year-old boy, as the price of normalizing children dressing in drag in front of adults?"
     Additionally: "Are we willing to accept that price?"
     Unfortunately, since Michael Alig (Desmond's possible rapist) is now dead, it seems that we do not have a choice in the matter.

Click on image, and open in new tab or window,

or download, in order to see in full resolution.

Written on January 18th, 2023.

Image created on January 18th, 2023.

Published on January 18th, 2023.

Infographic: These Are the People Who Pizzagate Deniers Want Us to Believe Are Not Pedophiles

 

Click on the image, and/or open it in a new tab or window,

or download and open, in order to see in full detail.





Image created on January 21st, 2022.
First posted to Facebook on January 21st, 2022.
Posted to this blog on January 4th, 2023.

Andrew Tate Scandal Becomes Sixth (Not Second) Trafficking Scandal in U.S. History to Involve Pizza

 Introduction

     In late December 2022, former kickboxing champion and men’s self-help guru Andrew Tate tweeted environmental activist Greta Thunberg to brag about his car collection and how much his cars pollute.

     Thunberg’s response, and the ensuing reactions on Twitter, resulted in accusations that Tate’s bragging amounted to hitting on a young woman who just recently became an adult (she was 19 at the time and turned 20 on January 3rd), and to the arrest of Andrew Tate while in Romania, on suspicion that he, his brother, and others, kidnapped at least six women in order to force them to appear in pornographic films with Tate and others.

     Since Romanian police were able to locate Tate due to his tweeting a picture of himself alongside a pizza box from Jerry’s Pizza in Romania, this scandal is being called “the second Pizzagate scandal”.

     But that is only being said because this, and the Pizzagate child sex trafficking scandal from 2016, are the two best-publicized human trafficking scandals involving pizza.

Six Scandals

     Based on my research, I can count no fewer than six pizza-related trafficking scandals throughout American history:

     #1. 1975-1987: Pizza restaurants in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States – including New York City – were discovered to be laundering heroin, using pizza as a code word for the drug.

     Those restaurants were discovered to have been set up, as front operations, by elements of the Italian and Sicilian mafias in America. This was an international drug ring that imported heroin from Southeast Asia.

     Read more about the “Pizza Connection Trial” at the following link:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_Connection_Trial

 

     #2. May 14^th, 1998: John F. Kennedy Jr. reads a poem on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, supposedly written by Monica Lewinsky at age nine, describing pizza in a sexual way. The poem seems to have been some sort of cryptic reference to the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal.

     J.F.K. Jr. died in a plane crash just over fourteen months after that interview.

     Watch the full interview at the following link:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_zQO9l4n-E

     #3. June 1^st, 2011: The reporting on Donald Trump's use of a fork to eat pizza, while eating with Sarah Palin in New York City. This (probably manufactured) scandal was dubbed "Pizzagate" in various media. Outlets that covered this story included M.S.N.B.C. and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

     Stewart, a former roommate of Anthony Weiner (in college) had had Weiner on The Daily Show earlier that year. When Stewart was asked, in a television interview, whether he was surprised that Weiner had sent sexual messages to teenage girls, Stewart said he was surprised, but also resisted the urge to laugh, and said of Weiner, “He ain’t Hitler.”

     Stewart’s relationship with Weiner, and the fact that the “Trump eats pizza with a fork” Pizzagate story came out the same day as Donald Trump's interview with Piers Morgan (in which he became the first person to use the phrase "pizzagate" on television), suggest that Stewart and/or others may have conspired to create a second, fake Pizzagate scandal, which had to do with actual pizza instead of sex crimes.
     On June 1st, 2011, Donald Trump became the first person to use the word "Pizzagate" on television, via phone interview with C.N.N.’s Piers Morgan, in discussion of then late-breaking revelations about Anthony Weiner. Trump told Morgan, “I heard about Weinergate, I heard about Pizzagate”.

     In my opinion, it's even possible that Trump - a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's, along with Weiner associate Hillary Clinton - may have helped give fuel to the fire, popularizing the "Trump eats pizza with a fork" by giving interviews about why he did it, as if it were a real news story.

     The purpose of this - if it happened that way - would have been to create a new scandal with the same name, making it difficult for people to figure out what Trump meant when he used the word Pizzagate in relation to Weiner’s sex scandal. For example, people trying to do internet searches for whichever “Pizzagate” Donald Trump was talking about, would find the answers that they were looking for, to be suppressed, in proportion to the number of results that they would find, regarding the reporting about Trump eating pizza with a fork.

     Watch reporting about Donald Trump eating pizza with a fork here:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asv7EB1btok

     Watch the clip of Trump’s interview with Piers Morgan at the following link:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wAEcN9UIy8

     #4. October and November 2016: Wikileaks publishes leaked e-mails which prove James Alefantis to be an acquaintance of John Podesta; and which researchers interpret to implicate John Podesta and Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis as possible cannibals and pedophiles, Tony Podesta as a possible pedophile and a long-time friend of Dennis Hastert, Tamera Stanton Luzzatto and husband David J. Leiter as pedophiles, and Hillary Clinton and Marina Abramovic as Moloch or devil worshipers.

     These allegations involved claims that John Podesta and others were using code-words for child sexual abuse (and possibly also cannibalism) in their e-mails to each other.

    John Podesta had also seen some of his e-mails leaked in March 2016, seven months before the rest of the leaks began.

     The following Buzzfeed article is cited by Wikipedia as one of the top two articles which supposedly debunks the idea that the Pizzagate sex scandal implicates Hillary Clinton and pertains to Anthony Weiner.

     However, the tweet which the article suggests is dubious – sent by @DavidGoldbergNY, a Jewish lawyer who may or may not be a real person - alleges that Hillary and her husband took trips with Weiner on “their pedophile billionaire’s plane, the Lolita Express”.

     That tweet – sent on October 30^th, 2016 - was an obvious reference to Jeffrey Epstein, but neither the tweet nor the Buzzfeed article mentions Epstein by name:

     http://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fever-swamp-election

     During this scandal, James Alefantis and Hillary Clinton were both accused, by researchers, of holding children in the basement of Comet Ping Pong, possibly in cages; for sexual and/or cannibalistic purposes.

     Many researchers have pointed to troubling posts on Alefantis’s Instagram account (@jimmycomet) involving dolls, Alefantis standing behind a young girl with her hands taped to a table, Alefantis’s numerous questionable Instagram followers and business partners, and other disturbing facts. Alefantis was also rumored to have “hooked up” with 16-year-old male employees (New York's age of consent to sex is sixteen).

     Detractors of the theory claim that Alefantis was telling the truth when he told FOX News’s Megyn Kelly that Comet Ping Pong doesn’t have a basement, but he admitted that he used its basement to store tomatoes and other ingredients in an interview in the D.C. Metro Weekly on April 16^th, 2015.

     Alefantis told Metro Weekly, “…we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes – ten tons of tomatoes every year. Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.”

     See proof of that here:

     http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/04/from-scratch-james-alefantis/

     #5. December 4^th, 2016: Actor Edgar Maddison Welch drives from North Carolina to the District of Columbia, and enters D.C.-based pizza restaurant Comet Ping Pong, owned by "Jimmy Comet" the nickname of James Alefantis. Alefantis was the former boyfriend of politico David Brock.

     Pizzagate researchers believe Welch shot at the restaurant's computer tower because he believed it to contain child pornography. Despite shooting nobody, Welch was later sentenced to prison by Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022.

     Read more about Welch and that shooting here:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Criminal_responses

     #6. December 2022: Former kickboxing champion and men’s self-help guru Andrew Tate tweets environmental activist Greta Thunberg to brag about his car collection and how much his cars pollute. Her response, and the ensuing reactions, result in accusations that Tate was attempting to “groom” Thunberg, and also to the arrest of Andrew Tate while in Romania, on suspicion that he kidnapped at least six women in order to force them to appearing in pornographic films with Tate and others.

     Romanian police were able to confirm Tate’s location because he posted a photograph of him with a pizza box from Jerry’s Pizza, a local restaurant that is only in Romania.

     Read more about the allegations against Tate, regarding his “Hustler University” sex trafficking operation, at the following link:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK1siFYwkeg

     Additionally, in the early 1990s, it became evident to "pizza runners" in Washington, D.C. that increases in local pizza orders correlate with increased activity in foreign policy or military news, such as preparations for war.

     Read more about the "Pizza Meter" at the following links:

     http://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/the-pizza-meter-was-a-staple-of-1990s-pop-pseudoscience-we-should-revive-it.html
     home.xnet.com/~warinner/pizzacites.html#time




Conclusion, and Author’s Notes

     I do not say all of this in order to allege that there is any connection, between the Tate scandal and Pizzagate, aside from the fact that they share pizza and sex trafficking in common.

     I state these facts merely to prove that the Tate scandal is not the second pizza-related trafficking scandal in American history, and in order to help readers recognize patterns which may prove informative at a later date.

     Please watch my video, about the possible use of ice cream, as a code word for child sexual abuse, at the following link:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK1siFYwkeg

     None of this is intended to imply that all references to pizza, and/or ice cream, are references to sexual abuse. I have made it clear - in my videos and writing - which specific purposes and instances of usages of such terms, should be considered suspicious, and why.

Written, and originally posted to Facebook, on January 1^st, 2023
Edited and expanded, and published to this blog, on January 3^rd, 2023