Monday, July 14, 2008

White Conservative Activist: Yeagley an "Utter Fool"

This is pretty amusing: Yeagley is being repeatedly mocked as an idiot by someone who is an ACTUAL conservative, unlike Yeagley who simply poses as one to fool the naive.

Terry Morris, author of the Daniel Webster blog, describes himself:

I am simply an American, committed to and passionate about the idea of liberty through self-government and independency. These are my qualifications for blogging. These are the fundamental interests which drive my posts. You may decide whether I may be described as a 'Patriot,' which I take to be something more than simple 'patriotism,' or an occasional expression of 'patriotic' impulses.

Most of Morris's blog is straighforward discussion of ideas about small government. As I said before, actual conservatism rather than posing as one as Yeagley does and trying to ride the coattails of the conservative movement.

While Morris took Yeagley's claim of being Comanche and title of "Dr." seriously, otherwise Morris was not fooled by Yeagley, and clearly embarassed Yeagley was presenting himself as conservative. Perhaps a closer look at Yeagley's history of being a white supremacist is what Morris needed to see.

Yeagley offered a confused defense of Indian gaming which only left Morris amused at his feeble attempts to reason.

Then Yeagley truly made a fool of himself with his endorsement of a Republican running for congress.


Monday, July 7, 2008
Oklahoma Indians, here's your man

Attention uninformed conservative Okies: The advertisement you see to the left is merely a temporary thing. You needn't worry with it any more.

Here's Dr. David Yeagley endorsing Republican Jason Nelson for District 87 House. Now, I don't live in Dr. Yeagley's district so I have no say in who's elected to that seat. And I haven't read anything on our candidate outside Dr. Yeagley's endorsement. What concerns me are the grounds on which Yeagley endorses our Indian-friendly candidate, Mr. Nelson:

If you're an Indian, and you live in District 87 (central Oklahoma City), you must vote for Jason Nelson for your state representative. I ran into Jason yesterday evening, while walking through my neighborhood. He was campaigning, house to house. I spoke a good while with him. I'm convinced, he's the best man for Indians.

No, he doesn't say a word about Indians in any of his campaign material or on his web site. But, I'm telling you, I spoke with him personally, at length. I know what he believes, feels, and thinks about Oklahoma Indians. He's our man! (Also told me his wife was part Chickasaw!)

Now, Dr. Yeagley, how many otherwise white-looking folks in Oklahoma have a bit of Chickasaw or Choctaw or Cherokee running through their veins? This fact Mr. Nelson reveals about his wife surprises you and delights you? I don't get it.

Well, I could go on and on and on about why Dr. Yeagley's encounter with Mr. Nelson on the streets of his neighborhood in OKC cannot possibly have been enough to convince him of all that ... unless he's an utter fool. One single (lengthy) encounter with a candidate selling his candidacy (to an Indian) in his neighborhood and Dr. Yeagley's ready to grab up his megaphone and announce to the world "I know all there is to know about him Indian-wise, he's our man!"? C'mon!

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Yeagley's Obsession With Black Male Genitals

From, Yeagley's latest racist rants that reveal his mixture of jealousy and loathing of Black males.

July 11, 2008
David Yeagley’s Trouser Eyes
from the Bad Eagle blog

Nothing shocks me anymore about David Yeagley’s lack of basic decency and compassion. His weird logic notwithstanding, his rants are marred with racially based comparisons and denigrating language about anyone who is not as pale as a bucket of milk. Just take a look at this jolly crumpet:

“Apparently, all a black man has to do is grab his own crotch, or verbally refer to his male organ, and white women swoon... they seem to bring nothing but low, immoral life with them, wherever they are. It is slavish sensuality, the antithis [sic] of spirituality. Even the black religions of Africa are not spiritual, but sensual. But, if the other races are willing to be absorbed into the darkness, then we can't really blame black people, can we? Why, that would make us all as weak as we accuse them of being. Whites think they can market black denigration, without being degraded themselves. Now, that's really racism” (July 2008).

First of all, what is Yeagley doing staring at people’s crotches in the first place, and do we really need to read about it? It appears to me that it’s not the crotch owners who are doing anything unsavory but the crotch watchers who then write about it on the web — but to each their own.

What is really meant by Yeagley’s phrase “slavish sexuality”? Is a person’s sexuality something that naturally succumbs to slavery under a slave master? Is David on some secret fantasy ride with his Dom? Or is Yeagley attempting to setup a false dichotomy within a person’s own sexuality, where no dichotomy truly exists? It appears Yeagley — once again — has not really thought this issue through very well. But I suspect that clear delineation was not part of Yeagley’s intended agenda.

And if “slavish sexuality” is a nonsense concept, it cannot be rightly used as a foil against any type of “spirituality” let alone the “ antithis [sic] of spirituality” — I’m guessing Yeagley really meant “antithesis” of spirituality. Largely though, I’m not convinced there is such a thing as a spiritual antithesis anyway. Considering that spirituality means many things to many sincerely spiritual people, only the most narrow and archaic-minded stereotyping of spirituality would even remotely function as Yeagley suggests with his false dichotomy. Both from the extreme diversity of history and the cosmopolitan reality of today’s world, Yeagley’s notion simply makes no sense at all.

No, Yeagley’s entire ‘rant’ has nothing to do with spirituality, clear thinking, or crotch gazing. In the end, it’s really just another race-baiting diatribe from a seemingly disgruntled white supremacist. The revealing part of Yeagley’s entire blog is this little nugget toward the end:

YEAGLEY — “other races are willing to be absorbed... Whites think they can market black denigration, without being degraded themselves. Now, that's really racism.”

Whites are marketing black denigration? When did this happen, was I in a coma? How did I miss something this important!

Actually no, it’s only white supremacists that are promoting the denigration of blacks, of which Yeagley apparently counts himself a member. Accepting and open-minded folks already regard these blatant racist distinctions as wholly unnecessary and quite fruitless as a fixation for both blogging and crotch gazing. It’s only “the Yeagleys” of the disgruntled blogosphere that take issue with race at all, unfortunately dumping their “great white throne” weltanschauung on everyone else’s lawn — no pooper scoopers in sight.

But the most important point is this, if racism is one group denigrating others as inferior, than Yeagley has setup an obvious and rather stupid bait-and-switch. “Now, that's really racism,” rants Yeagley, arguing that it is racist for white folks to mix it up with blacks. But he’s really just ratcheting up his brand of bait-and-switch hyperbole.

In actuality, mixing it up with blacks is the exact opposite of racism. By definition, ‘absorption’ between cultures would be necessarily inclusionist or multicultural — not racist. Only from the perspective of a dedicated white supremacist could you label the natural and evolutionary integration between whites and blacks as “racist.” Only a genuine bonafide white supremacist would ever make that altogether useless, and rather malcontented, distinction.

The truth of the matter is this: there is no such thing as racial purity, and consequently no such thing as a white race, by logical extension. Even further, the United States of America could not have been founded on any great white toilet, as Yeagley asserts, because no such reality did, nor could it biologically, ever exist.

Every American patriot, in every square inch of America, is of longtime mixed heritage resulting from a very long evolutionary process of natural selection, stretching back millions of years. One evolutionary branch splits into more limbs, and splits again, all joined from a beginning trunk at a juncture one might call an evolutionary crotch. Can you say “how’s your garden groin?”

But seriously, every human on planet earth has the same root DNA that descended from the beginning of life itself. All people on earth are genetic relatives of the first chromosomes that originated all of us. Those shared DNA materials from the first organism are still lingering around inside of us right now — literally. Grapes have it, Whites have it, Apes have it, Mites have it. We all have it.

So not only must we regard Yeagley’s bait-and-switch as dumb science; also, it is entirely useless toward explaining anything at all. The only possible use for Yeagley’s hyperbole would be to incite divisiveness and promote hatred where none need exist. Once again it seems David Yeagley has demonstrated himself to be of the ‘white supremacist’ persuasion.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Yeagley "Almost Exactly the Same as David Duke"



David Yeagley succumbs to Baracknophobia!

Yes, David Yeagley (not surprisingly) succumbs to Baracknophobia in yet another of his white supremacist pontifications. Yeagley is feigning the victim yet again, "oh, it's too horrible to repeat — SO HORRIBLE — the homosexual libel against Obama, so horrible that I cannot repeat it here on my blog, I morally cannot post it at all, I simply cannot," but then Yeagley posts it all anyway. This two-faced behavior is exactly why no one cares about Yeagley's views whatsoever. It's all too easy to see Yeagley's own hypocrisy.

In his earlier silly rant, Yeagley attributes a black president to changing the color of the entire ‘white’ house for the worse — the lowest of the low in racial outlook. Yeagley is fearful of genuine American equity in this country, American equity, the fair market, the Patriotic commonwealth, the common good of all American Patriots — all seen “bad” in Yeagley’s ranting. Not only shortsighted on Yeagley’s part, but downright discriminatory and anti-American. Yeagley’s no patriot. He’s no warrior. He’s behaves like a disgruntled white supremacist who’s afraid of sharing the commonwealth with all other Americans, including his many Mexican relatives. It’s a sad shame when internalized racism grabs hold of anyone and leads them to this lowly behavior. Sad and a pitiful shame.

“As the slavish media continues to blather on about Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama, we note that the ghetto level behavior of black ‘culture’ has already accompanied them... absolutely vomitable... Michelle Obama is quintessentially hypocritical. She feigns (and fawns) over her supposedly lowly background near the street--the very kind of place were faddish behavior is breeded... You'd think the Obamas were white... They say Joseph Goebbels believed that propaganda made the Third Reich... In the case of the Obamas, one thing is clear: the blacking of America. The constant visual, in your face ‘change’ of color... their way of ousting the hated white conservative power” (June 2008).

Above, we see Yeagley throwing the ‘third reich’ at Obama, the “blackening” of America when America was never white to begin with, Yeagley’s own upchucking bodily functions, and the deep mischaracterizing of nonwhite culture as the ‘ghetto.’ However, one of his blog followers, made this astute comment:

“ ‘It is clear of her now, as it has been of Barack Hussein for some time, that we simply don't know Michelle, or her husband. We don't know who they really are [Yeagley].’ So, if ‘we’ don't know Barack or Michelle, if ‘we don't know who they really are,’ as you claim, could you explain your frothing at the mouth diatribe against them every other post for the past several months? You act as though you do know them, continually assigning to them motivations you've cobbled from other blacks and simply projected to them... You need to start asking yourself why you are so angry. And ponder this, as I mean it with upmost sincerity... your views are almost exactly the same as David Duke's. Aside from your self-professed love of Jews and Judaism, what difference is there between you and the Dukster?” (June 2008).

Well said!! What Jason points out is absolutely true....