December 28, 2006

“YEAGLEY YAHOO”
(Patriotamentia Sufferer)

by Brent Michael Davids, 12/28/06

Are you having trouble resting, you know, just being calm? At repose? Feeling that need to fight? Do you see compassion as a weakness that must be overcome with hardcore “manliness”? Are you suffering from a severe case of Patriotamentia? Like the severe patriotamentia sufferer David Yeagley, do you constantly see your surroundings as a battlefield? As a struggle of “us” versus “them?” As a fight with extremely concrete black & white consequences? Do you, like Yeagley, compulsively construe the world using war terminology in a process of “100% thinking” where you're 100% certain of your position and there is no gray area whatsoever? Are you a supporter of US “preemptive war” around the globe? Do you support the US “policing of the world” and the imperialistic “policies” of the war profiteers? Perhaps you need Warriorholics Anonymous.

If you are like David Yeagley, or simply adore him as a supporter or as a so-called “neutral” bystander, perhaps W.A. can help. Warriorholics Anonymous recognizes the imperialist warmongering desires of US wars around the globe, and the trumped up “patriotic” fervor that is falsely generated to support it. David Yeagley was chosen to be a token “American Indian” pundit by the corporate sponsors of imperialist war efforts, for his lack of sound reasoning skills and for his genuine lack of compassion. He was plucked out as a special Indian, ripe for tokenism and patriotamentia. If you are Yeagley himself or his supporter, you are badly in need of help.

Of course, Warriorholics Anonymous recognizes that for some socially-challenged folks war means “handsome profits” and “overseas investment opportunities,” usually under the catch-all banner of “American Interests.” These same folks even misappropriate funds from domestic opportunities as well, such as the so-called economic “Go Zone” setup in New Orleans to help dump former tenants onto the street in favor of new and more expensive housing developments.

But these folks, like David Yeagley, do not understand that humanity comes before money, and that war mongering and disaster profiteering are not humane. Warriorholics Anonymous understands that the price of war is paid by people who have nothing to do with the false reasons that initiate these wars and profiteering rackets. Yet, easily-swayed pundits like David Yeagley continually rally behind the warmongers and war profiteers, using his so-called “warrior” image as a rallying point. But W.A. recognizes Yeagley's presence as false hype and no substance.

If you are suffering from patriotamentia, like David Yeagley is, here are some organizations that may be able to help. Tired of being a pawn for imperialist wars? Tired of getting “preemptive” sand kicked in your face? Why not check out this list below, and contact them today. David Yeagley may be too far gone to bother with (you would never find these links at his site), but don’t you get caught with your red-white-and-bloomers down! Why not give up your patriotamentia and your destructive addiction to war, and give peace a chance. You too, David.

American Friends Service Committee
215-241-7000, www.afsc.org, afscino@afsc.org
A Quaker organization dedicated to humanitarian service and issues related to economic and social justice, peace-building, and demilitarization.

G.I. Rights Hotline
800-394-9544, www.objector.org, girights@objector.org
The hotline provides military members about discharges, complaint procedures, and civil rights. It helps victims of harassment, and discrimination, and anyone who wants to get out of the military.

Central Committee of Conscientious Objectors
215-563-8787, www.objector.org
The Committee promotes individual and collective resistance to war and preparations for war, including conscientious objection assistance for military discharge, enlistment obligations, and registration.

Global Peace Campaign
81-470-97-1011 (Japan), www.peace2001.org, yumik@peace2001.org
Founded after the 9/11 implosions, the campaign supports antiwar education in the USA and Japan, and supports antiwar billboards and ad campaigns in major newspapers.

Fellowship of Reconciliation
845-358-4601, www.forusa.org, info@forusa.org
The Fellowship seeks to replace violence, war, racism, and economic injustice with nonviolence, peace, and justice. They educate, train, build coalitions, and engage in nonviolent compassionate actions.

Global Exchange
415-255-7296, www.globalexchange.org
A not-for-profit international human rights organization, with diverse programs including reality tours to dozens of countries, fair trade stores, corporate accountability campaigns, antiwar work, and green economy promotion.

Peace Action
202-862-9740, www.peaceaction.org
This organization works to abolish nuclear weapons, develop a peace-oriented economy, and end the international weapons trade. The PA promotes nonmilitary solutions to international conflicts.

International Action Center
212-633-6646, iacenter@iacenter.org, www.iacenter.org
Founded by Ramsey Clark, the Center provides information and organizes resistance to US militarism, war, corporate greed, linking these issues with struggles against domestic racism and oppression.

Military Families Speak Out
617-522-9323, mfso@mfso.org, www.mfso.org
This organizations is made up of families opposing the Iraq war, and subsequent occupation, who have relatives or loved ones in the military.

War Resisters League
212-228-0450, wrl@warresisters.org, www.warresisters.org
This organization uses nonviolence to remove all the causes of war, producing educational resources (including “The Nonviolent Activist” magazine). It works in coalition with other peace groups, and provides training in civil disobedience, and war tax resistance.

School of the Americas Watch
202-234-3440, www.soaw.org
SOA Watch works in solidarity with the people of latin America to change oppressive US foreign policies, working in particular to close the School of the Americas where the Pentagon trains Latin American military officers in methods of torture and repression.

Teaching For Change
202-588-7204, tfr@teachingforchange.org, www.teachingforchange.org
Through public education, TFC promotes economic and social justice, providing services, training and resources for K-12 teachers, parents, educators.

United for Peace & Justice
212-868-5545, www.unitedforpeace.org
The UFPJ opposes the “preemptive” wars of aggression waged by the Bush administration, and rejects the drive to expand US control over other nations and strip US citizen rights here at home under the guise of “fighting terrorism” and “spreading democracy.”

Not In Our Name
212-969-8058, info@notinourname.net, www.notinourname.net
A strong resistance organization since the Vietnam War, NION was created to inspire protest and show solidarity with the people harmed by US militarism.

Coalition Against Militarism In Our Schools
626-799-9118, info@militaryfreeschools.org, www.militaryfreeschools.org
A grassroots organization of students, parents, and teachers who are dedicated to demilitarizing our schools, and presenting alternatives that value life, social justice and peace.

True Majority
212-243-3416, www.truemajority.com
Led by Ben Cohen (founder of Ben and Jerry’s), TM monitors Congress on social and environmental issues, seeking to ease the nuclear nightmare, renounce the militarization of space, and make globalization work for, not against, working people.

Veterans for Peace
314-725-6005, vfp@igc.org, www.veteransforpeace.org
An organization of men and women who served in the military and are now working to abolish war. VFP educates fellow citizens about the true costs of militarism, work to change our nation’s priorities, and conduct projects to heal the wounds of war.

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
215-563-7110, wilpf@wilpf.org, www.wilpf.org
The League works through peaceful means to achieve world disarmament, full rights for women, racial and economic justice, and to end all forms of violence.

December 26, 2006

‘Bad’ Eagle Equals ‘Bad’ Reasoning
(or the great white hypocrite speaks)
by Brent Michael Davids, 12/26/06

"There is the matter of a simple birth certificate. And there is also the matter of absent fathers and lying mothers... It is a great embarrassment to Indian pride, but Indian people are deeply involved in dysfuntional [sic] families and the resultant confusion, legal hazards, and financial circumstances attending. There are large numbers of illegitimate children fathered by irresponsible Indian men and loose Indian women. This is a fact, whether Indian people want to admit it or not. It is public now. Rudy is possible [sic] a perfect example of it. Rudy's free-wheeling identity image is degrading all respectable Indians" (David Yeagley, phony descendent of a Comanche personality)

There is the matter of the partial Yeagley birth certificate. And there is also the matter of white fathers and unverified mothers... He is a great embarrassment to other Indians, but Yeagley’s blogs are deeply involved in dysfunctional families and the resultant confusion, legal hazards, and financial circumstances attending. There are large numbers of illegitimate children masquerading as irresponsible Indian men salivating over Indian women. This is a fact, whether David Yeagley wants to admit it or not. It is public now. Yeagley himself is a perfect example of it. Yeagley's freewheeling identity image is degrading all Indians, respectable or not. (Every genuine Comanche)

December 23, 2006

A Yeagley “White” Christmas
(with Yeagley “scare” quotes)

'Twas a “white power” Christmas, “post nine-eleven,”
And Bush was “conferring” with “mandates” from “heaven.”
“Cahonjes” were hung on the “white house,” both pair,
Until everyone noticed a “queer” puff of air.

His “children” were “wrestling,” all blogging in forums,
“White” Indians and yes-men, all fighting in quorums.
Yeagley donned a disguise, in a bright “thinking” cap,
But it “slipped” off his “noggin” without a chin strap.

“Self-praising” on Wikipedia, Yeagley “fumed” such a “chatter,”
He was “banned” from the website, they were “sick” of his “patter.”
Away to his own “forum,” he construed in a flash,
“Tore” into his minions, “threw up” and “rehashed.”

The “moon” in moonwalk is “vulgar,” NOT “apropos!”
Like cosmetically changed Michael Jackson, you know.
“White” models, young “darkies,” all “girls” he holds “dear,”
Voyeurist “visions” of “weak” babes “domineer.”

His “judgments” and “views” are decidedly “thick,”
While his detractor’s wits are “lively” (too quick?),
Those rapid “bad eagles,” his “rivals,” they came,
So he “bristled” and “ranted,” and called them some “names!”

Now “Commie!” Now, “Commie!” Now, “Commie!” and “Commie!”
On, “Commie!” On, “Commie!” On “Commie!” and “Commie!”
There’s a “plot” against “whites” here, you cannot deny!
But he’s more-or-less “pegged” as a “shrill” Captain Bligh.

He bawled “I’m the doctor of all things!” in a wild rally cry,
Till he met with an “obstacle” (a smart handsome guy?).
Now exceedingly wishing to jump to his feet,
He watered his loin cloth and stayed in his seat.

And then, while he’s “tinkling” (which all heard “as proof”),
Yeagley “railed” at them cross-legged, and raised a “foul” roof:
“Stop slandering me with the facts, I am nationally renowned!”
He’s “warning” us “this time,” he won’t “clown” around.

He was “dressed” all in buckskin, with a “headband” on top,
In an “outfit” he “found” at a “novelty” shop.
With Bad Eagle “ties” based on “stories” he made,
Yeagley looked like a “meddler” who’s “mighty” cliche’d.

His eyes did they “lower,” “lambaste,” and “degrade,”
His cheeks were raised high under scalpel and blade.
He once had some kindness a long time ago,
Now his “race-bait” and fight are “pure white,” don’t yah know.

The “stump” of his “speech” was compassionless drivel.
‘Round his head it “assailed,” one might call it “uncivil.”
With “black” hair and “choker,” he’s not a gray hen,
Shhhh! (his “Indian” secret’s called ‘Clairol for men’).

His “writing” is careless, low-minded and stuck on itself;
But don’t take “my” word, you can “read” it yourself.
In the “blink” of an eye and a “twist” of the “truth,”
Yeagley “fingers” his “mark,” and types “something” uncouth.

He’ll focus on “words” till we think he’s “berserk,”
“Forgetting” what’s good in the world, like a “jerk.”
And pointing “his finger,” with faux “Indian” clothes,
He pontificates “trash,” till his “friends” become “foes!”

He “defends” his own “lowness,” by making up “games,”
“Words” rate more “focus” than the world he “inflames.”
His games are so plentiful, and his words so contrite:
“I’ll fault every Indian, till the world is all white!”

December 21, 2006

What’s Wrong With David?
by Brent Michael Davids, 12/21/06

For American Indians, generally, the “Creator” does not “ordain” anything, not as some anthropomorphic being. The Creator may be the Creation, or the universe, or any number of life concepts, but certainly one cannot justify any notion of the Creator by quoting the Bible. Christianity and American Indian religiosity are not the same, one need only read Vine Deloria, Jr.’s God Is Red to know that. Additionally, how is it that the great pontificator, David Yeagley, knows the “deep purpose” of any “Creator” when he cannot even figure out what a Comanche really is, except “blood” degree? No, David knows little about American Indian spirituality, and has blasted it on many occasions, often with misogynistic insults to the Elders (i.e., like describing Indians as “more pitiful than a helpless, dying woman,” etc.) and the ancestors in the process. And Yeagley states emphatically that Comanches had no god at all historically, as they were considered the “agnostics of the plains,” let alone being any sort of Bible believer.

We know, instinctively as well, that the Creator has ordained difference. (Genesis 11:7,8; Deuteronomy 32:7-9; Revelation 21:24.) The differences between men serve a deep purpose in the outworking of human events, and in the communication between heaven and earth. To toy with race, to try even to destroy it, is blasphemeous [sic]...

Folks do not fall in love, marry, or have kids, on “presumption” or some notion of “carelessness.” People join together because it’s right, and I would argue that they see it as a blessed activity. Being this race or that race, being this degree of blood or that degree, matters very little, and is certainly not worth agonizing over as if some notion of racial purity needs to be maintained.

One could easily argue that race mixing is also the Creator’s design, since everything that happens might be seen as ordained that way, even "evil" (i.e., the problem of theodicy, etc.). What the pontificator is arguing for is selective reasoning, or what academics call “proof texting,” finding only the evidence to support your preconceived notion instead of looking at all the facts before deciding anything. And again, what is this fascination with “blood” about? Certainly not the “mystical power of being an American Indian” which is a load of horse manure. Leave it to the pianist to use two anti-Indian slams in one breath: blood degree racism, and the noble savage stereotype:
The obsession with racial integration and intermarriage may seem inevitable in today's world of presumption and carelessness; it may ... appear to be a great thing, to transcend race and culture. But the mystical power of being American Indian is based on blood...

Your mixed up blood yourself David. As for honoring and defending, read my previous post about serving your country, and go do it. Do it and stop denigrating our Elders and ancestors with your shallow squawking. I’d wager very few give any credence at all to your warrior fakery, since you are the epitome of a chicken hawk, never serving whatsoever. You are all talk and have no genuine experience at all: war, cluck cluck, war, cluck, war, cluck cluck, blood, cluck cluck, war, cluck, blood.
I for one consider it precious. I for one will honor it, defend it, and protect it... Regardless of the carelessness and profligacy of Indian men and women since the reservation days, our obligation to day is to do, not as they did, but as they should have done. They were depressed, forsaken, and hopeless... Well, I say it is time to revive hope, while there is any blood left...

Speaking as another “Bad Eagle,” I have to say I am NOT continuing any efforts to discredit another Comanche Indian, except for the fake Indian David Yeagley, Indian by enrollment only, anti-Indian in mind and thought. Yeagley, you are A-E-I-O-U Descent: American Enrolled Indian Of Unverified Descent. I think the only Comanche resenting other Comanches is a guy named David Yeagley, who received casino money from the tribe but who blasts the tribe when it supports anyone else but Yeagley. Yeagley’s position here is selfish and egotistical, not to mention two-faced. And it uses Yeagley’s usual method of attack-advice, by throwing a bit of black race-baiting into the harangue, as if Yeagley straightening his own curly follicles denotes anything decidedly racial about Yeagley himself — which is complete nonsense. For anyone who knew him ‘back when’ and cares to remember, here is a photo of him (in the middle) when Yeagley was white-skinned and curly haired.
BadEagle continues the effort to identity him and his background... This is about Indian identity... Rudy has friends, supporters, and defenders. The Comanche tribal leadership has spent money on promoting him. This was money that could have been spent on real Comanche youth, and some Comanche people resent Rudy for this, as well as the leadership... He's dark, and as long as he disguises or hides in non-straight (kinky?) hair, he can pass for an Indian...

Again, anyone buying into or siding with his reasoning here is simply not looking deeper into the meaning of what he is writing, not taking into consideration who is doing the writing, and not considering what the objective is for such writing. If you are a friend or supporter of Yeagley, I would suggest a more skeptical approach to his rhetoric, and a healthy dose of critical analysis. With Yeagley, unfortunately, nothing he says can be taken at face value.

December 20, 2006

Is Yeagley “Warrior” and “Patriotic” Enough?
by Brent Michael Davids, 12/20/06

Bush is about to, foolishly in my view, increase troop levels in an Iraq “surge,” David. Now is your big chance!! You can finally become a true warrior, and serve the government you espouse to “love.” No need to worry about pesky military fit-for-duty requirements that may have hindered you in the past, today’s contractors are carrying the load of the Iraq occupation these days. You can join and go fight!! It’s an opportunity not to be missed! Show your “patriotism” and “warrior” prowess!

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush asked his new secretary of defense to draw up plans to increase the overall size of the Army and the Marines, according to an interview with the president published Tuesday in the Washington Post. ‘I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines,’ Bush said.”

It’s easy David, why not go get yourself employed by one of these companies, and head on over to Iraq? Are you “warrior” enough? “Patriotic” enough?


You should really do it, David! Work along side the US Military! I hear that today’s military, those true warriors, are really becoming more reasonable in their outlooks about gay folks on the job. I personally think being in that particular environment might do you a world of good. Trust me on this point, and check out this latest Zogby poll. It seems that 3 of every 4 American military patriots think it’s just fine for warriors to be gay.

The Zogby Interactive poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan was designed in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and conducted by Zogby Oct. 24-26, 2006. It carries a margin of error of +/- 4.3 percentage points.

Of those in combat units, 21% said they know for certain that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian... The data also indicate that military attitudes about homosexuality have shifted. In the early 1990's, many senior officers argued that U.S. troops could not form bonds of trust with gays and lesbians, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject. According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.”

December 19, 2006

Lots of Soap and Hot Water for Hannukah
Originally Posted by The Editrix, 12/19/06


Whether there are new going-ons in the world of beauty pageants (with which he is eerily fascinated) or Bill Clinton sneezes and a puppy dies, the valiant Waffler utilises it for discharging yet another bit of his unappetising racism.


This time it's a Jewish commemoration of survival which serves as a bowel-opener.

I would like to suggest another Jewish holiday: Yom Komah. The day of walls. Protective walls, not just walls (kirah). Walls of protection. This would commemorate the restoration of the walls around Jerusalem, around 444 BCE. (The second temple, after the return from Babylonian captivity, was finished in 515 BCE.) The Jewish nation was not fully ‘independent’ until the walls were finished.

I say, to, it’s more that physical walls of protection. There were walls of ethnic division. There were walls for preserving the race, the Jews themselves. From what? Intermarriage. More than one occasion, leaders (first Ezra, chs. 9,10, then Nehemiah ch.13) dramatically rebuked the population for intermarriage with non-believing, non-Jewish people that had come into Palestine since 722 BCE. These are particularly agonizing episodes of public condemnation of the people. The priest Ezra had actually commanded mass divorce! (Ezra 10:9-17)

This is a remarkable demand. A stunning lesson in preserving the nation. Walls of ethnic separation. Walls of racial protection and preservation. Yom Komah. The day of Walls.
To provide a Hannukah present to all the Jews who still haven't twigged to whom they are pathetically sucking up (although, admittedly, I am always pleased to see a falsification of the old antisemitic cliché that Jews are particularly bright) I am herewith providing a small selection of Waffle's 'philosemitic' quotes.

Certain Jews are not the only one who see the sexual promiscuity and exploration as a marketable item. No? Why then mention them at all?

The Holocaust terror at least had a racial divide of some kind. [I.e. as opposed to the French Revolution.] Of course. Anybody who commits genocide on racial grounds can not be all bad.

I was about to comment on how and why certain Jewish persons, particularly American Jewish persons, would want to trascend [sic!] the offense of Nazi Germany, and laud ad infinitum the virtue of Germany, period. Is this greater forgiveness than I as an Indian show America? is this unprecedented aggression? It is as if KPS [a poster supporting White supremacist positions suspected to be a Jewish woman] has a religious intensity focused on transcending Nazi Germany, of looking beyond, above, and through it all, and validating something she feels has been totally misrepresented and maligned. It is unusual heroism, and self-trandscendence [sic!], if KPS is truly Jewish.

This insufferable bit of drivel translates to: A Jewess who supports White Supremacist positions and acts as an apologist for Nazis is not an abysmally dumb cunt who ought to be clobbered to death with a concrete-bound Torah, but a selfless heroine for the cause of the White race.

Yeah! Right! And it needs a self-hating 'breed' to tell us that.

Today, we are all left with the impression that Hitler's rage was all about Jews. But we know Nazis hated a lot more people than just the Jews. Therefore, there are some critics who say that the modern image of the Jewish Holocaust is dominant simply because Jewish people today have made it such. I leave this uncommented apart from: Whatever you say, the Nazis STILL think you are nothing but a mud person, Yeagley!

Then there is this observation: This is basically a Jewish situation [i.e. the Michael Richards 'nigger' gaffe]. Richards is Jewish, Allred is Jewish. This is Jew against Jew. Jews are quite willing to attack one another, over some completely non-Jewish issue. This is interesting. Jews cannot be accused of racist comradery [sic!] amongst themselves. I don't see that. I see one Jew quite willing to go after another Jew. He sees Jews EVERYWHERE. Period.

The Holocaust was simply a misconception. I don't think it was the original plan, anyway. I don't think love of one's race leads to something like the holocaust, either. I'm sure six million murdered European Jews would be interested in that neat little bit of philosophy.

Perhaps the impetus of anti-Semitism could better be understood as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are no more than natural suspicion expressed on the grandest social scale, with all the complexities pertaining thereunto. It is a captivating condition of the mind... It is too simplistic to write anti-Semitism off as a hate scheme. It is a giant conspiracy theory. Hate may be a differentiating factor, but this is only because the Jews are human. There is no "hate" involved in the UFO theories, for instance. Don't I just LOVE people who use words like 'thereunto' but aren't able to spell 'bum' correctly! However, what is this about? So antisemitism is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are no hate schemes, therefore antisemitism is not hate-inspired. We are SO relieved! Aren't you, Jews?

You'll be lucky if you tell me anything about Jews I don't already know, but, I seem never to tire of hearing about history. Yeah Yeagley" 5000 years and you know all about it. Can you spell ME-GA-LO-MA-NI-A?

Oh well, for good measure and because I am in such fine fettle today I'll add two neat little quotes about Waffle's not-so-secret hero Adolf Hitler:

Is it anti-Semitic to see something pristine in the German warrior image? No, you unspeakable fool, not per se. But you were talking about Hitler and WWI and not about Arminius and the Romans. But you can't help it, really, or can you? IT speaks inside you!

Yes, remember World War II. That was the last war in which the enemy had honor. That's right. The Nazis did not hide who they were. They were promoting who they were. Yes, they had spies, but those were special agents. Indeed! Tell that to the 14-year-old Russian partisan the Germans caught and fixed him to the track of a tank, with which they then slooooowly proceeded. But hey! That boy was a 'Commie', so he really didn't deserve better.

Gosh, what a putrid cesspool of confusion, stupidity, hatred and self-hatred the mind of this not-quite-White offspring of a "racially mixed" marriage is. I'd pity him, weren't he quite so vile.

And before somebody calls me a self-hating German again, let me say that in no other country but America, and certainly not in Germany, could such a vile, hate-filled, uninformed, uneducated and abysmally dumb person become a 'pundit' — ever.

And now excuse me, I have to go and take a very long and very hot shower.

Oh yes! And Happy Hannukah! (The_Editrix)

December 14, 2006

The Yeagley Effect,
the race-baiting dilemma
of David Yeagley

by Brent Michael Davids, 12/14/06

“The Democrat senator from Illinois, Mr. Barak Hussein Obama faces some interesting identity challenges... Mr. Obama is half white... African-American...means American Negro--descendent of slave... They have no connect but for their genes. Most American Negroes know little or nothing about Africa, and couldn't care less, usually... Mr. Obama is truly a multicultural person... Mr. Obama seems to represent everything but America... Obama essentially represents merely another obfuscation of American culture and ethnicity. He is basically a foreigner. I should say, there is something in him fundamentally foreign. A lot of American blacks, the conservatives and even the liberals, are averse to ‘Africans’ ...This is a very real situtation [sic]. I know from personal experience... Is it a good thing to despise ethnicity, to obscure it, to bury in it the mix? Are all ethnicities destined to be obliterated by intermarriage and multiculturalism? Is this the Obama Effect, in the end? Honoring confusion? Does the mix result in a superior entity?” (David Yeagley, multicultural pianist)
Did David Yeagley’s multicultural roots result in a superior entity? Can Yeagley pontificate about the black experience just as foolishly as he does the Comanche one? Yeagley is half-white, basically a foreigner — is this the Yeagley effect? Could anyone be less delusional and racist?

Is leaving a bunch of unanswered questions at the end of an article, good writing? Does it make up for the lack of substantive facts about real issues that do not harangue on about the superiority of racial purity? Does it imply there is a pseudo rationale behind the words being written, but without actually writing them?

Maybe we should call your race-baiting the “Yeagley Effect” for its logical potential to create unnecessary race-based posturing and downright racism. The Yeagley Effect, denoting the use of grandiose racist diatribes for race purity, with a dash of two-faced forgetfulness of one’s own multicultural genes. Yes, I like it: the Yeagley Effect.

December 13, 2006

Yeagley Calling the Kettle
By Brent Michael Davids, 12/13/06

Rudy "Youngblood,"... through his claim of being American Indian, many tribes in Oklahoma are actually benefiting financially. Rudy has motivated fund raisers and sponsors to support major Indian health causes in Oklahoma... The Lupus Foundation America ... The Oklahoma City Indian Clinic ... the Tulsa Indian Healthcare Resource..."Giving back to the community"? No. He’s taking everything from them with such false claims. It is identity theft, usurping the honor of those Indians who died for the blood of their people... The best thing he can do for Indians is not to raise money (David Yeagley, Pianist)
I have not seen this film, but anything Yeagley says has proven time and again to be for some racist agenda he advocates for his own personal gain. If the Oklahoma health leaders are giving the actor credit for his generous support of Indian health efforts, I will withhold my personal judgment about this actor. After all, Yeagley is himself an extremely poor representative of Comanche culture, denounced by every Comanche who knows of him. So, could an adopted Cree be a good "Indian" citizen in a Cree community? Could he be good for Oklahoma Indians? I will wait and see. As for Yeagley, I already know he is an apple, not by anything he says per-se but by what Yeagley does.

Poor David works 100% against Indians, focusing over-obsessively — and rather delusionally — on some fantastical notion racial purity, although he himself is mixed. Sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong, I have no doubt that his writing of this race-based article is to further denigrate Indian people by stirring up hatred by race-baiting Crees against Mayans against Yaquis against Comanches. His words are infantile in reasoning, and self-serving in purpose. Anyone buying into this article on its surface, without looking beneath the surface, is falling for his hook and swallowing the race-bait, line and sinker. — Brent Michael Davids

December 9, 2006

The Yeagley Chicken Hawk Clucks Again
by Brent Michael Davids, 12/9/06

“Thanks to Damon Wayan, you can say nigger again, but it will cost you $20 a pop. Yep, the LA late night comedy club, Laught [sic] Factory, just put a price on it. They fined Damon Wayan $320. for using it 16 times” (David Yeagley, pianist)

This latest Yeagley entry proves the point, the “piano doctor” as he has been called, is citing a comedian’s use of the N word with cultural applicability. That’s in itself racist coming from a self-proclaimed part white-part Comanche white power movement apologist. I’d like to see Yeagley himself get up in front of that comedy club audience and try using the N word 16 times. Let’s see if it makes any difference WHO is using the word or not, shall we? I would put good money on the pianist-turned-supremacist not making it out of that club in one piece.

As I’ve said before, what is it with this self-indulgent and self-important pontificator? Yeagley is obviously a “me-generation” poster child, smacking of insincere praise for a false dichotomy championed by those who seem to think that a little sensitivity towards others is somehow destroying the language. That’s the equivalent of saying the early "genocide" against American Indians never existed, because the word itself wasn’t in use at that time, therefore there was no Indian genocide. How infantile is that?

This “language” argument (above) is itself a good illustration of racist reasoning, wishing away the reality of peace for the sake of hermeneutical manipulation. Just as the pianist (who has never seen true war) is the embodiment of a true chicken hawk, I suspect he has never truly encountered the black reality either. Visit that club and try out your new word Yeagley, and put it to the test, yes? I dare you to try it. Do I hear faint clucking sounds?

December 3, 2006

Racism should be used
“only when appropriate,”
says David Yeagley

By Brent Michael Davids, 12/3/06

“Maybe the word ‘n_gg_r’ should stay. It should be carefully defined, and refined, and it should remain--as a testimony to the intent of law, and not as the bread and butter of vainglorious, self-righteous attorneys. ‘N_gg_r’ should be used when and only when appropriate... If the meaning is not about visceral hate, not about rejecting human beings, not about exluding [sic] people from the land of the living, there can't be any law against it. You can't make laws against natural aversions, only hate.” (David A. Yeagley, Pianist)


So what you are saying is, that laws could be made against hatred, and subsequently therefore no laws exist against the use of that particular word? Really, David.

Again, your reasoning is shockingly infantile for a college graduate. It takes nearly no brain power whatsoever to understand from minorities themselves that expressions such as this are derogatory, and are almost always used with some connection to hatred, one way or another.

Even minorities using such language within their own communities (perhaps toward each other) are using it as an empowering response to the oppression suffered from those who use it for hate, not as victims but from positions of personal strength. It would be like me calling myself a “red skin” — knowing that it’s derogatory — as a sarcastic jibe against others using that language intended to degrade me. It’s a cultural “insider’s joke” when such language is used by the minorities ourselves, a joke against the oppressor.

Any child could understand this Yeagley. This above quote is nothing but a smoke screen for white supremacy, trying to sway a hermeneutical falsehood by shoehorning “law” into it. Talk about cramming a square peg in a round hole. As I’ve stated before, anyone defending this infantile use of derogatory language for fabricated legal reasons or for some preservation of language issue, is simply blowing smoke ... white smoke ... white supremacy smoke.

November 29, 2006

David A. Yeagley, Racist? You Decide.
By Brent Michael Davids, 11/29/06

“‘N_gg_rs’ in the News from the Bad Eagle Journal: It's never going to end. Blacks, African-Americans, Afro-Americans, American Negroes, whatever, have a perpetual ticket to glory in our wondrous American system... Can't the American Negro do better than this? Aren't there any real leaders among them? Is the American black man so easily destroyed? Does one word do it? Say it isn't so. If it is so, Why is it so? Then, of course, there's the poor black female...” (David A. Yeagley, Pianist)


It's the truth that rules in the end. Yeagley’s smoke and mirrors m.o. — attacks dressed up like so-called advice — is plain to see. Sites like this one would not exist if the false faces like Yeagley had a bit more humanity and self-control. But as long as they project out there misogynist, homophobic, militaristic, racist rhetoric, corrective sites will always be there in response. If Yeagley simply washed his mouth out with soap, the world would be a better place.

"I just think it is neurotic and preposterous to make the sky fall because somebody says "n_gg_r," or any other one single word. It is ludicrous, in fact.” (David Yeagley, Pianist)


What is it with this self-indulgent and self-important pontificator? Yeagley is obviously a “me-generation” poster child, smacking of insincere praise for a false dichotomy championed by those who seem to think that a little sensitivity towards others is somehow destroying the language. That’s the equivalent of saying the early "genocide" against American Indians never existed, because the word itself wasn’t in use at that time, therefore there was no Indian genocide. How infantile is that?

Being sensitive toward others, and respecting how they — themselves — wish to be identified, is the hallmark of getting along and making peace. The above quoted attitude of the pianist David A. Yeagley is nothing but shortsightedness, and the belittling of others as inferior. This “language” argument (above) is itself a good illustration of racist reasoning, wishing away the reality of peace for the sake of hermeneutical manipulation.

Yeagley Supporter John Martin
Issues Death Threats
From Badeagle.com

Originally Posted by Dr. Al Carroll, 11-28-06

John Martin of San Diego AKA Tallsoldier77 has issued at least three death threats at Indianz.com and three more at Badeagle.com. Indianz.com seems to have kicked him off, or perhaps he left. He’s no longer listed in the membership.

But at Badeagle,com, Yeagley is apparently not only providing a forum for his repeated death threats and race baiting, he approves and is actively encouraging Martin.

Previous visitors to this archive might recall Martin as the one issuing a challenge to a debate between myself and Yeagley. I gladly accepted and offered to set it up at my college, but Martin backed down and tried to bluster his way out of it with a slew of profanity and race-baiting.

In several threads at Indianz.com he humiliated himself repeatedly. His claims of being an ex-member of the 82nd Airborne and veteran of the Gulf War were exposed as obvious lies. He lashed out with at least three death threats. Even the sole other supporter of Yeagley, Betty Ann Gross, refused to have anything to do with him.

Martin continued his tirades at Badeagle.com, where he knows Yeagley is afraid to allow me. Yeagley and his alleged financier, Mark Winters, approved of and cheered on Martin’s tactics of hate preaching and threats of murder.

http://www.badeagle.com/cgi-bin/ib3/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=74db0612f264e57c59444d5f253a1180;act=ST;f=53;t=6651;&#top

Martin issued the first of three death threats.

John Martin: “I'm going to let my pit-bull Bam-Bam tear you apart.”

Mark Winters: Let’s play “out the beaner.”


At that point another member of BE urged calm.

ALISDAIRE EACHTHIGHEARN: “I hate to be unkind, but you sound unbalanced and hysterical.”


Yeagley weighed in with his usual ethnicity baiting paranoia.

Yeagley: “Is your name Scottish, or perhaps Irish? We have a Black Watch here, so be careful.”


Then comes Martin’s second death threat and racist bluster:

John Martin: “We will drop a bomb on that little mexican creep, we will frag his ass, and then laugh…it is my mission to seek and destroy that little beaner... If anyone is offended by my post, well, TOO -F-ING BAD, for you see, it is my destiny to seek and destroy.”


Other members of Badeagle.com became disturbed by the threats.

Phidoux: “It might be a good time to back up and re/position my friend.”


Martin wasn’t deterred. He went on to cheer on racist violence by two crooked cops.

John Martin: “The recent Border Patrol incident in which two honorable BP agents were sent to prison for brandishing some old west style justice on some illegal mexican drug smugglers as: "a step in the right direction, the INS is out of control against MY people".Stupid beaner!!!!!!!!!!!!”


Again, other members of Badeagle.com urged Yeagley to intervene:

ALISDAIRE EACHTHIGHEARN: “Maybe you need to get your benchmark right about what ‘imbalanced and hysterical’ is, Dr Yeagley, sir?”

Yeagley would not listen. He defended Martin’s death threats, racism, and cheering of racist violence. Martin followed up with yet round of race baiting and another death threat, the third one.

John Martin: “I could let Bam-Bam, my ferocious Pit-Bull rip his greasy butt to shreds. Bam-Bam hates bean-heads… I put the word out to all my relations in Dakota Country, al carrol is a f-ing wetback, who is going to get his balls rammed down his mouth! Come to Dakota Country you sorry piece of taco-grease, your ass is going to get scalped.”


All of his threats are made more laughable by his ignorance. Tacos and beans as an insult for Mexicans? Has he never heard of Apache tacos and Navajo tacos? Does he not know about beans as the staple for Natives all

His threat of having people in Dakota Country out to get me is also laughable. To start with, he claims to be Oglala Lakota, not Dakota. Another poster at BE also pointed out Martin claims he hasn’t been back to the rez in many years. Moreso, even some members of BE doubt that Martin is actually Native.

I also wonder if he’s an imposter posing as Native, just like he posed as Airborne and a Gulf War vet. He used a British expression earlier.

Finally, after Yeagley refused to do anything for several days except cheer Martin and make excuses for his murderous bluster, other members of BE stepped in:

Mac Coinneach: “Any more comments from you like the one quoted and it'll be you that is gone.”

Ajibik: “John, you can back-pedal and play the victim all you want, but at the end of the day, and several death threats later, you have no worse enemy than yourself. When's the last time you were in Pine Ridge? You make it sound like you've lived there all your life. Maybe in White Clay for a day? The only thing that'll clear things up here is if you'll sign a Form DA-180 to release your military service records.”

Amerind3: “TS77, you are a filthy-mouthed schizo, and if Yeagley had any decency (or cojones), he would call you down. But he doesn't, so he doesn't. Actually, your mission is quite close to ‘accomplished,’ if your mission is to destroy this site.

Maybe Yeagley was describing you when he wrote, ‘Indian men... and also typical of black women, together, is just the kind of thing that says these races deserve to be on the bottom of the barrel. They cannot appreciate good will, they are possessed by envy, and have no higher thought than lies.’(That is, if you are REALLY Indian, which I seriously doubt.)”

Mac Coinneach: “Lies? As in non-existent links like you posted about Carroll's website? Who do you think that helps?

You don't know what you're talking about. If you've never "seen any post here that supported or re-affirmed the white separatists movement", then you've not looked very hard. Try looking in the "The White Race" fora. Start at the beginning and work your way forward. You can also have a look in the Scottish forum the same individual(s) tried to promote the self- same nonsense.

Against the advice of the more senior members here, Dr. Yeagley opened those three fora, and allowed a white ‘nationalist’ to moderate them. I wondered when the views promoted by the StormFronters that were posted here would come back to haunt us all.

You've been warned because of the outrageous things you say - including threats of violence to other contributors. I gather you've made the same threats to Dr. Yeagley elsewhere. Taking everything into consideration, you're starting to show all the hallmark behaviour of a troll. I don't like trolls.”


His empty threats certainly won't stop me from speaking out. If anything, they make me even more determined to stop someone like Yeagley who would cheer on a lunatic like Martin.

Martin does not seem to even have the courage to debate me, much less carry out his threats. The photos of himself he has posted online show someone very bloated and out of shape, at least fifty pounds overweight, hardly a threat to me. Little wonder he preferred to have his dog do any dirty work.

I simply want others to know just the type of low characters Yeagley has for followers, Neo-Nazis, eugenicists, and other white supremacists, a tiny self-hating minorities, and unstable lunatics like John Martin.

November 27, 2006

Revealing Expose on “Sagely Yeagley”

After bringing more focused attention to the rather obvious inconsistencies inherent in devising a truly “new” harmonic theory worthy of inclusion in one’s biography, it appears the challenge to engage this theory publicly remains blinked away by the pianist turned sage.

This challenge is up to 428 reads now over at www.Indianz.com. More people are finding out about the rather glaring fact strrrretching on your bio, resume padding really, to puff up small accomplishments into era-transforming breakthroughs.

The challenge is still here though, mister Yeagley. What is this self-created 'new' harmonic organization you speak about with such high regard? My time is of course limited, but it would not be such a difficult task to analyze your Awakenings CD, so perhaps I will simply put a bit of time into it, and unpack this great theory for all the world to see. I'll do you a favor and publish it on Wikipedia, in addition to everywhere else I can find. Let’s see, what would make a good title for it. How about something like this:

Davids, Brent Michael (2006). An expose on the so-called “new” harmonic organization of pianist David Anthony Yeagley. World Press, Easy Street, All over the Galaxy. 12 pp.

Arranged in the form of an expose, an analysis of Yeagley’s compact disc Awakenings provides a comprehensive understanding of the falsity of Yeagley’s exaggerated claims of creating a new theory of harmonic organization, versus the quite negligible impact of his syncretistic theory on his contemporaries, followed by an authoritative list of the theories from which Yeagley has extensively borrowed.
I invite others to suggest alternative titles.

— Brent Michael Davids

November 22, 2006

Your new harmonic theory, David Yeagley?

David Yeagley
“has created a new system of harmonic organization, and presented it in a formal lecture in Israel, 1998.”

Says so, right on your web site. But when you tried posting that information on Wikipedia, that claim could not hold up under the weight of verifiable fact.

So which is it? Yes, you’ve created an earthshakingly new theory of harmonic organization? Or No, you created another small entry in a long succession of attempts to make a new theory that borrows from all the previous attempts? I suspect the latter.

Every major period of music in Western music has been identified with its own titled category. Why? Because significant musical changes occurred warranting those distinctions. So, in Western music, we have the Medieval period, the Renaissance, the Baroque, the Classical era, the Romantic period, 20th century composition, and even something that some are calling postmodern (whatever that truly means).

Every one of these eras was marked by composers who brought new systems of harmonic organization to the forefront, so much so, that it seemed a major shift occurred from one era to a newer one. One era led to another, which in turn led to another, and so on, each era contributing to its successor in kind. Each period is marked by outstanding harmonic achievements worthy of notoriety.

Even today breakthroughs sometimes occur in modern (or so-called postmodern) music theories, such as when Harry Partch started writing with microtones, and had to construct his own instruments able to play them. Partch is a renown figure for his systems of harmonic organization. But yours, Mr. Yeagley, what about yours?

How about it? Let’s see your “harmonic organization” breakthrough, Mr. Yeagley, a breakthrough so bold that it has unmistakable notoriety suitable for any biographical entry. I have had students who create new systems of harmony for every piece they write, yet they do not declare these harmonic arrangements as notable.

So why is yours notable? Let’s examine it, shall we? We can do this together, just send me your speech of 1998. Send me your formal treatise. If this system is noteworthy, you must have it written up someplace, yes?

But why is your grand theory not to be found anywhere? No references to it exist, except in your self-composed biography. With your theory in hand, I promise to review your new theory for all the world to see and truly appreciate. Send it to me, so that I might help usher in the new Yeagley era.

— Brent Michael Davids

Response Counter: Day 7 (11/26/06) — no reply

November 21, 2006

Second Call for Composer Review
by Brent Michael Davids

David Yeagley “has created a new system of harmonic organization, and presented it in a formal lecture in Israel, 1998.” Says so, right on your web site. But when you tried posting that information on Wikipedia, that claim could not hold up under the weight of verifiable fact.

So which is it? Yes, you’ve created an earthshakingly new theory of harmonic organization? Or No, you created another small entry in a long succession of attempts to make a new theory that borrows from all the previous attempts? I suspect the latter.

I admit there have been breakthroughs in music theories, when Harry Partch started writing with microtones, and had to construct his own instruments able to play them. That was new. It was new when Ben Johnston went to study with Partch, and started writing just intonation microtonal pieces for standard instruments, such as his “Amazing Grace” for string quartet. Did I mention that I was there when it premiered with Ben Johnston and the Kronos Quartet? Well I was, because I was also performing with the Kronos Quartet on a string quartet of my own on the same stage, on the same evening, on the same concert.

So how about it? Let me see your “harmonic organization” breakthrough, Mr. Yeagley, a breakthrough so bold that it has unmistakable notoriety suitable for any biographical entry. I have had students who create new systems of harmony for every piece they write, yet they do not declare these harmonic arrangements as notable.

So why is yours notable? Let’s take a good look at it, shall we? We can do this together, just send me your speech of 1998. I promise to review your new theory for all the world to see and appreciate. I can do this without you, by simply analyzing your Awakenings recording. Your publisher gave me a complimentary copy though I’ve yet to listen to it. But I could you know, and publish a critique of your theory without you. But it would be better if you engaged me on this Mr. Yeagley. So how about it?

Response Counter: Day 2 (11/21/06) — no reply

November 20, 2006

A Call for Composer Review
by Brent Michael Davids

Anyone coming across your site, Mr. Yeagley, would perhaps gather that you’ve created a groundbreaking new theory of harmony, as stated in your own words:

“Yeagley is a classically trained pianist... He has created a new system of harmonic organization” (David Yeagley).
No one that I’ve ever known, met, or heard of, has ever seen this theory. So here’s the challenge, send it to me and I will review it publicly, and publish the review. I am interested in comparing your theory with others, and determining your theory’s importance to the field of music, especially American Indian composition.

Does your theory borrow from previous theories? Interval string theory? Cellular development? Microtonal arrangement? Chords or synthetic scales? Tonality? Modality? Atonality? Serialization or set theory? What about timbre, rhythm and meter in your new system?

I’ve performed with many of the nation’s top composers, Ben Johnston (microtonal composition), Tan Dun (synthetic scales and timbre), Mario Davidovsky (electronic music and music concrete), and many many others. I have studied many genres and systems, and teach many of them. I am confident about delivering a scholarly review of your work. Why not accept this call, and send me a treatise unpacking your new theory, and I will review it for the world to truly appreciate its worth.

Response Counter: Day 1 (11/20/06) — no reply

November 2, 2006

David Yeagley and the Prince of Dumbness
(an extended, but good, read)
By Brent Michael Davids, 11/2/06

From Mr. Yeagley we read constant bellowing about truth and about his squealing aversion to detestable lies. Yet, he upholds Dracula as a myth, a stereotype, and a cultural hero to justify his pro-genocide stance. It seems Mr. Yeagley is not limited to championing negative American Indian stereotypes to the inclusion of non-Indian ones too.

David Yeagley absolutely loves and adores “the truth” as he immediately posts the only existing comment to his own Dracula article, after realizing he has glorified a liar and needs to make sure we readers do not mistake him as a liar lover. But his so-called “definition” of truth must appear to the rest of us as a simplistic dualism, as if truth and lies are the flip side of some cosmic coin. His logic here is magnificently dumb (2006):

“the prince of darkness is the prince of deception. Darkness never appears as darkness, but always as something else” (David Yeagley, article)

“I personally believe in the truth... If there is such a thing as a lie, as we all know, I dare say, there is such a thing as the truth” (David Yeagley, comment)
Ironically, Mr. Yeagley's “comment” (above) feigns a love of truth while his “article” (continued below) clearly admires the deception of Dracula. The arresting lack of compassion in these words is both horrific and for Yeagley somewhat autobiographical in a stereotypical way, considering his recent calls for genocide against Muslims and his “talking point” gyrations against Iran:
"The foul, fetid beast feigns great intimacy, intense interest and care--especially for the weak. He senses weakness immediately, and hones in for the kill. So, what's so monstrous about that? Isn't that what we all do, in different ways? ... I'm not sure exactly what sort of pretense we're practicing if we do see him as so offensive... He is alone and loathed. He lives off other people. He must deceive them into his confidence. He must lure them into a relationship. And he then lives off their blood... He survives, just like we all want to. He triumphs, as we all dream of... Being human is monstrous” (David Yeagley, 2006)
Almost on cue, he launches from glorification of the impaler into is paint-by-number form of logic, the attack-advice (attacks cloaked as advice), a contextual game of “pile-on” to see how much more illness he can add to build up an even bigger pile. The pile-on game below includes attacking: Muslims, Arabs, the Clintons, immorality, Islam, and women. No evidence to support any of it, just slander, and rather lame with regard to the Clinton reference, who’s been out of office for 6 years now. Bush is to blame for 9/11, for removing the safeguards and intelligence the previous administration had already put into place. I suppose dumb is as dumb does:
"Ask the Muslims ... Which Arab setting next to you on the plane, with his lovely wife and children, is not a mass murderer? ... The vampirism of the Clintons tempted the dignity right out of politics. It's now a lazar house of moral zombies, or so it sounds, if you listen to commentators. (Bush rarely gets the kind of credit he deserves for staying above the fray, out of the mud. The day after 9-11, he called Islam "a religion of peace." Everyone knows that isn't true, but, Bush gave them, at least formally, the benefit of the doubt. A rare, kind moment in political history. Everyone knows, Islam is the religion of misery. Ask the feminists.)" (DY, 2006)
Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr. Yeagley’s mental “acuity” is not limited to recent history, because back in 2001 he wrote similarly of Dracula, even positing another fantastically incoherent theory that flies contrary to the known facts:
“I have a theory that once a people or nation survives a great threat of extinction, that people become themselves aggressive expansionists, in their determination never again to be so vulnerable... it was men like Dracula who saved us... there is something in his ruthless conviction that we need today... Where is our Dracula today? ... He annihilated his foes without mercy. He filled their hearts with fear... Where is Dracula when you need him? Pacifists of the Christian Left, be warned. Had your ancestors thought like you, you would have no freedom to practice Christianity today” (DY, Oct 15, 2001)
So let me get Mr. Yeagley’s “theory” straight: (1) those who are victimized by genocide become genocidal themselves, which (2) is something America needs more of today, because (3) that same aggressive genocide fosters true freedom and compassionate Christianity?

On point 1, Mr. Yeagley is clearly NOT thinking like an American Indian, which I will explain shortly. On point 2, he is clearly part of the lunatic fringe trying to overthrow America’s constitution and is therefore completely un-American and 100% unpatriotic. And on point 3, Mr. Yeagley appears naive to the simple cause-and-effect reality of life, namely, that “what goes around comes around,” or what a Christian might know as simply “the golden rule.” Mr. Yeagley’s so-called Christian compassion is about as loving as Rush Limbaugh’s vicious attack on Parkinson sufferer Michael J. Fox. The pumpkin head logic of Mr. Yeagley’s “theory” staggers the mind.

Back to point one, Mr. Yeagley is no where near to thinking like an American Indian. To better understand how far, far away he is from Native thought, let me recount an old Mohican story of the snow beast or cannibal giant; it is an interesting story because (1) it teaches what 'good' and 'bad' are to Native people, (2) it shows how Indians dealt with the colonials who first came to this continent, and (3) it reveals how Indians look at the world and how they see non-Indians.

There are many versions of this story, or many stories that are similar to this one; they are sometimes called the 'big foot' stories or the sasquatch stories, but are really nearer to a whole genre of cannibal giant stories from the Northeast Woodlands tribes. Here’s the basic story:
Once there was a family, a father, mother and child, living in a wikkum [wigwam: home]. It was very very cold. They would burn wood inside to keep warm, but they thought they might run out of wood. It was so bitter cold, that the fire they tried desperately to keep going was only hot enough to keep the inside warm; the cold was working its way further & further into their home. Fearing the harshness of the cold, the husband decided to go out and try to find more wood to burn; this was not an easy task because their was more than the cold to be concerned out. There were the cannibal giants.

The Snow Beasts were huge giants who were fierce and their voices would make the mountain rumble. As they walked, trees would tremble and their skin was hard as stone; no arrows nor weapons could hurt the giant. Their heads were proportionately larger than their bodies. The beasts could not communicate, even with each other, and would eat people. They were cannibal giants and lived in the cold as their hearts were made of ice. The snow beasts could change form to look like people, quite often like someone familiar, like a relative, a mother, brother, or an uncle. The only way to recognize the snow beast was through its behavior; if it behaved like a non-relative, it was really the beast.

As the husband was getting ready to go out into the cold, they heard some noises from outside. They knew it was a snow beast; they had heard the stories of how a beast was going from village to village eating people. The snow beast was outside their home! The beast did not like the heat coming from their home, so it could not come too close. But the beast was coming nearer and nearer, and their fire was getting cooler and cooler. They all knew that soon, the beast would be at their door and would come inside and eat them.

Then, just as the beast was ready to push its way into the wikkum, the woman got an idea and spoke up — loudly — so the beast could hear, "Look husband, your long lost brother has come to visit us!" With that, the beast was momentarily startled and wondered about what the woman had said. In that moment, the husband joined in, "Brother, it is so good to see you again! Where have you been? Please, come in and tell us everything!" So, the beast was even more startled and its head grew a tiny bit smaller.

As the husband questioned the beast about all the things they had missed as youngsters together, the woman invited the beast to eat. But the beast could not eat what she offered because it could only eat people. The woman offered it a cloak to be warmer and the beast, now quieter, listened to all the detailed stories of adventures that the beast had missed while away. "You are welcome to live with us here, my brother" the man offered. Listening to him, the beast grew a little smaller and calmer.

Eventually, the beast decided to accept the woman's offer to eat, and he went over to the kettle of soup cooking over the flame. In a quick moment, the beast grabbed the hot kettle and poured scalding soup into its throat as it swallowed the soup all at once! With that, the beast's cold heart was melted and it grew smaller and smaller; its face grew smaller and became more like a person's face and it became as a man is.
Looking at this indigenous story, five observations jump out:

1. The beast lived in a cold harsh place. The beast makes everything else around it 'cold and harsh, or that it thrives in cold and harsh environments. This "coldness" is a bitter and unhappy situation.

2. The beast could resemble a human but it consumed people instead. First, people are known by their actions not their appearances. The snow beast was historically a way for Mohicans to deal with the newly arriving light-skinned settlers. If the settlers acted as a “relative” might act, they were commonly accepted as friends; if they acted as monsters and consumed people (or land) than they were seen as cannibal giants. In this way, I think there is a Mohican “theory of otherness” at work that includes non-Indians right along side the Mohicans themselves, and stands in direct contradiction to those “eat or be eaten” non-Indian perspectives. Second, even your own family member, your father or uncle for instance, could become a snow beast discerned by anti-person behaviors.

3. The beast did not know how to communicate. The traditional Mohican world is based on a life-and-death reciprocity, an all important kinship among a world of relatives. In other words, to be 'bad' is to behave as a non-relative or a non-person; while to be 'good' is to act as a relative or a person who is related. It is clear from this story that even humans can be considered as non-people or anti-people if they behave as non-relatives (like monsters).

4. The beast was welcomed into the family as a relative. This aspect of the story was a pro-active plan chosen by the family to deal with the beast. The family did not try to kill the beast, but cautiously accepted the beast into their midst. They did not let it eat them, but they did try to get the beast involved in their family life.

5. The beast melted its own icy heart to become human. Anti-people can become 'good' by way of their own decision. Where they can be supported by family and friends, it is they, themselves, that must undertake the actual task of transformation.

The above story reveals how Indians ourselves look at how thickheaded anti-people consume everyone around them like an illness, and this illness is not something revered, nor desirable, nor idolized, nor admired, nor acceptable within Indian communities. Even further, American Indians do not inflict genocide on others for having it inflicted upon us.

Based on the above story, read again the Yeagley “theory” and one can easily see that nowhere does it even remotely resemble Indian philosophy.
"I have a theory that once a people or nation survives a great threat of extinction, that people become themselves aggressive expansionists, in their determination never again to be so vulnerable... it was men like Dracula who saved us... there is something in his ruthless conviction that we need today... Where is our Dracula today? ... He annihilated his foes without mercy. He filled their hearts with fear... Where is Dracula when you need him?” (DY, Oct 15, 2001)
In fact, one might even argue that Mr. Yeagley is perhaps theorizing in some autobiographical sense about his own prowess with his so-called “theory,” himself a thick-skinned hammerhead who drains the energy out of most people he meets. If Mr. Yeagley was a legitimate citizen of the Comanche Nation, one might speculate on kinship-based approaches the tribe might take to heal Mr. Yeagley. But I highly doubt Mr. Yeagley’s claims of tribal heritage, based on the available evidence and upon his obvious non-Indian rationalizations, which largely serve his own selfish interests. No, I simply do not buy into Mr. Yeagley’s charade.