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

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

John Martin of San Diego AKA Tallsoldier77 has issued at least three death threats at and three more at 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 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, 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.;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 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 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 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.

What Do Actual Natives
Think of Yeagley
(Especially Comanches)?

Originally Posted by Dr. Al Carroll,

In only four years, Yeagley has managed to make himself the most despised person anywhere in Indian Country. Some of the more charitable Native opinions on him are that he is too much of a clown to worry much about, or simply crazy.

My earlier estimate was that Yeagley had perhaps half a dozen actual Natives agreeing with him out of an American Indian population of seven million, perhaps literally one out of a million Indians on his side. I was too generous. So far I have only been able to find a grand total of one Native (plus one other who may possibly be Native) who agree with Yeagley's far right politics and belief in white supremacy.

1. Betty Ann Gross-A Lakota woman initially drawn to Yeagley by their mutual support for "Indian" sports mascots. Gross's current main motive for her fervent support for Yeagley is their mutual racist hatred and fear of Blacks. By her own account, her racism was triggered by one of her family marrying a Black person.

2. Barbara Lindsay, of the anti-Indian and white supremacist group One Nation, claims part Cherokee ancestry. Like Yeagley, white supremacists find Lindsay's CLAIM of Native ancestry useful in misleading the naive. Also like Yeagley, Lindsay is herself a strong proponent of white supremacy regardless of her alleged ancestry. Whether she is actually Cherokee is not known. She is not enrolled with any of the three recognized Cherokee bands. Lindsay was kicked out of a Cherokee heritage group and denounced by them as a traitor to Cherokee people once they discovered her part in One Nation.

What do actual Comanches think of Yeagley and his white supremacy views?

"David 'Pole-dances-for-white-guys' Yeagley...he's as far from being Comanche as Tonto was being a real representation of Indians."
"Mr. 'Bad Eagle,' the original hang-around-the-fort, anti-sovereignty supporting, pro-mascot uncle tomahawk himself. (and those are the NICE things I've said about him in the past.) He never grew up anywhere near our community...I have no love for that traitor."
— Gerald Tieyah, self-described Comanche nationalist
"I challenge his connection to the Comanche culture and Comanche people."
"I don't like Yeagles anymore than anyone else...I don't care what his sexual orientation is. It is his speaking engagements, writings and cozying up to anti-ndn groups that should remain the focus of concern."
— Juanita Pahdopony, Comanche educator, artist, activist, and member of Comanche tribal government
Sent to me from another member of the Comanche tribal government:
"I was researching Comanche stuff on the web, found his website and began to read. I couldn't believe it. I was extremely angry so I met with the Comanche Business Committee during a monthly meeting behind closed doors. I gave them information, copies, the works about what he was saying and doing on his website."
"No one at the tribe takes him seriously. My whole point to the CBC was the fact he was speaking for Comanches in general. I told them he doesn't speak for me or my family. Only our elected tribal leaders can speak for us, which he is not."
"He's tried to get on with the Comanche Nation Constitution Revision Commission and was turned down. He's tried to get on at the Comanche Nation College and speak about his support of mascots, he was turned down. "
"He's tried to get 'in' at the tribe. Everyone thinks he's pohtsah (nuts)."
"A nephew told me David Yeagley embarrasses the family. They all think he's nuts. All he knows how to do is beg for money. He's made his website a non-profit and asks for donations because he is too lazy and disreputable to get a real job."
"He has crossed the sacred line."
Fron another:
“I met Sad Eagle several times after he approached me, kind of scary walking up to an elder, isn't it? The reason I avoided eye contact was not for some Comanche humility, I simply didn't want to look at you, that's all. Let me see if I can remember back to the Constitution Committee's forming, as I remember you had quite a burr under your saddle to get onto that committee; so, how’d that work out for you? I seem to remember you bringing your "brand" of superficial patriotism to the tribal council meeting once; how’d that work out for you? And, if memory serves, you also clamored to join the ranks of the educators at CNC; and, how’d that work out for you? I almost wish you would apply for [Ward] Churchill's job, and get far away from here. We don't banish people, but you have come closer than anyone I've ever avoided. Every time I see that trashy old dusty gray car your mother left you wandering lost around Lawton, I feel like recommending you for that Colorado professorship myself. With my credentials behind you, maybe you’d stand half a chance of getting it. But the educator in me would never inflict that upon any student. The thought of you 'grading' them.”
“He's been turned down by everything and everyone at the Comanche tribe. Wow, who would have thought someone so educated and 'revered' in 'conservative' 'non-Native' circles would not be considered. I guess he has ZERO power in the tribe even though he capitalizes on the connection ad nauseam.”
— Comanacha
Natives from other tribes join in the angry criticism:
“He is a pathetic loser and leech….Guy is a piece of ****. And then he insults the ancestors of the Caribbean. If he would have said that to my grand parents or any Guajiro or Jibaro in the good old days, he would be sure to find a machete shoved far up his ***. Then he most likely probably would be tasting metal...I mean, what, he thinks he is invoking the spirits? He is as red as an apple, yellow as a twinkie, brown as a potato.”
— DacaTaino
"That hateful man."
— Bee Neidlinger, Munsee traditionalist, founder of Yahoo group Ancient Native Heritage
"Indian Country's favorite Michael Jackson look alike....Thank god we have Yeagley! Or else Indians wouldn't know what their identity is...You can bet he left all those white ladies disappointed that night [speaking before a meeting of anti-Indian groups.] Yet another characteristic he shares with Michael Jackson!"
"No one ever accused Dr. David Yeagley of being in touch with Indian Country."
In the Hoop
"An Indian liberal for David's purposes is someone who supports, well, being Indian... He seems to be against anyone more famous or liked than him. Of course that covers just about everyone, so he is fond of attacking every respectable Indian leader and policy of self-determination.
Yeagley seems to hate Indianness...More than anything else he angers many Native Americans with these hateful tomes against Indian people...We understand why he hates Indians: He's not one."
— Cinda Hughes, Kiowa activist and activist for the disabled
"The darling of the right wingnuts...Nearly a lifer of a student...There's nothing in his writing to suggest any knowledge of tribal ways and protocols or involvement with actual Indian people... The more he publishes, the more he reveals his ignorance about Indian country...He never misses a chance to call Indian people names...[He] resembles the white men who used to wear feathers and tan pancake make-up for old cowboy-and-Indian movies...He shrieks about being a warrior and a patriot, but has never faced combat or donned a uniform. The closest he's been to war was a visit in 2001 to the Museum of the U.S. Army 45th Infantry Division."
— Suzan Harjo, Cheyenne author and activist
"Why is Mr. Yeagley a hypocrite? Because he ‘resents’ lies, although he champions them if carried out by leaders he favors."
"Mr. Yeagley’s efforts are nothing but a game of contextual pile-on: to see how much added denigration can be piled onto the original slander to increase its rank stench."
"Mr. Yeagley’s pseudo-arguments are mostly racial and misogynist attacks that are cloaked as advice, ‘attack-advice,’ that serve only to denigrate people of color and women. Mr. Yeagley appears to be following the standard ‘talking points’ coming from the right-wing warmongers and war profiteers, without any serious examination."
"What he does appears to directly coincide with those whom he wishes to please in order to keep his fake warrior facade alive."
— Brent Michael Davids, Mohican composer and activist
"White people stand up. Yeagley's suggested position for Indians is kissing white behinds. How much more proof do you need that this guy is a freaking traitor and a racist?"
— Jake Al, Cherokee activist
"Is it better to completely ignore these nuts or keep bashing them? How many articles have been written about Yeagley's overnight wannabe antics? Yeagley is like a pest you can't get rid of... Him and that white woman with an adam's apple do not speak for American Indians that's for sure!"
— Keenmah
The list of Natives opposed to Yeagley could go on and on since it includes literally every Indian who ever heard of him outside of Gross (and possibly Lindsay.)

The most striking lack of support for Yeagley comes from his own alleged family. Not even his own supposed brothers or sister by blood come forward to defend him. They have not done this even to point out he is not lying about being related to them or disprove what is widely known, that he was adopted.