April 24, 2007

The Chickenhawk Compassion of David Yeagley

from the Bad Eagle Journal

David Yeagley — “The students at Virginia Tech were afraid to respond... Thus, they are totally weak, and unprepared... Students are afraid to defend themselves. They don't have the spirit of self-defense... They are docile lambs... I say resist. Kill the killer, immediately. Don't stand around and watch... Throw a book at them, and they'll be terrified...

Such occasions as the VA Tech murders... are simply opportunities for the liberal rhetoric of lamentation... respond immediately--with violence! There were no heroic acts in the VA Tech incident, contrary to liberal media reports. Hiding behind a desk, or jumping out a window is not a heroic act! ... There is no honor in escaping. The honor is in taking the killer out, immediately. Respond to violence with violence--immediately, without hesitation, without thought, and without error.

You don't stand around and watch... You don't barricade yourself in a room, or behind a desk. You attack the attacker. Throw something at him... I'm sick of these killings. I'm sick of the weakness that allows them. I'm sick of the liberal philosophy of victimhood. That philosophy creates more and more victims! We don't need a pscyhoanalysis [sic!] of Cho Seung-Hui. We don't need an endless, professional explanation of why it happened, or a dramatized lamentation of the fact it did happen. This is not helpful” (April 17, 2007).


Amerind said...

When I first read the referenced "article", I was appalled, disgusted, and horrified beyond belief. Armchair bravery is so easy. But when has Yeagley ever showed any true courage? I've never seen even a hint of it.

I can just imagine what Yeagley's response would have been, had he been in one of the classrooms under attack at VT. His only "action" would have resulted in soiled, smelly britches.

Yeagley rails on and on about a "victim" mentality, while he is full of excuses for never really facing the world. He doesn't even seem to realize how often he plays the "victim" himself.

He whines about you, Dr. Al, and the_editrix, referring to you as his "ememies" and writes as though he is being "victimized" by you. Yet he doesn't even have the courage to let you critique his "new" harmonic theory. Such bravery he shows!

Keep up the good work here. Yeagley must be exposed for the racist, misogynistic hypocrite that he is. He is an embarrassment to true Indians and to all decent human beings.

O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.--Robert Burns


He's a true Chicken hawk, a fake warrior who never fought anything, never joined any US service, and whines about it a lot. Then he turns around and gives "the finger" to all the survivors of the school shootings.

The_Editrix said...

It JUST dawns to me WHAT I find so repulsive about our Sitting Duck. It's certainly not each and every one of his views. If I had to name a single thing, I'd name this appalling lack of compassion and empathy he shows towards his fellow human beings, and I suddenly remembered... isn't it the narcissistic personality, which gets in the way of compassion?

We may even be dealing not just with a neurotic personality, but with a full-blown personality disorder here.

This is a site meant as help for people who've had bad (or merely weird) experiences with narcissists. It's not highly scientific, it's not meant to be, but is gives you an idea.

I paraphrase:

Signs of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Has a sense of entitlement

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends

7. Lacks empathy

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes.

Pretty fitting, eh?


Yes, that's how I see him as well. Perhaps we should do an article outlining these traits backed up with his own writings. Yes?

The_Editrix said...

Well, my little compilation is full of them. I even intended to introduce a header called "Callousness" or something like that, but I refrained from doing so, because I would have had to repeat 95% of the about 60 or so unique records (not counting the duplicates). But even then NPD didn't occur to me.

But then, it's not something that would occur easily to somebody not trained in that specific field.

However, it's stunning and maybe I'll do another travesty when I have the time and inclination.

lonewolf379th said...


Before throwing stones at someone about their lack of military service, you better make sure that you are "pure" first.

Are you a veteran?

Are you presently serving in the military?

If the answers to both of the above questions are "No," you need to sit down and be quiet.

I know that "All comments must be approved by the blog author," so this post just might be deleted because, "We don't like people knowing we make mistakes too."


"purity"? what planet are you from, the warrior planet where warriors mate with other warriors to produce warrior offspring, untainted by non-warriors? We're talking about Yeagley here, the great pontificator, not me. No one asked about my inclination, but if they did, they'd find me opposed to war everywhere in any form. If I were called to go, I'd resist. Resistance is not a "mistake" it's a right. But more to the point, instead of changing the subject and trying to belittle my position, why not consider what I'm pointing out about the great pontificator, the fake warrior who proclaims his warrior prowess daily? I don't do glorify and romanticize war, and never would. I am not the hypocrite here; Yeagley is ... see the difference?

The_Editrix said...

That reminds me of my own blog rules, from which I quote:

The unit for measuring time here is "microFS" and defines the period of time between you typing "Free Speech" and my deletion of your comment.

The same applies to comments that contain the sentence: "I bet you will not publish this" or words to that effect. You are right. I won't.

You are very generous, Brent. I hope it is appreciated.


microFS, LOL that's funny. yeah, I think it's important to not get all distracted with personal digs, especially when I am one of those "war resister" types. Ever hear the joke about the opposing football coaches both praying for God to help them win? Well, the US military is like one side praising itself as the “City upon a hill” while using its military for aggressive not defensive purposes. I am not a military complex supporter, never have been. I place high respect for individuals who serve, but highly question the whole macro enterprise: the military complex, which I see as only one side in a multisided equation. When the US military starts defending anyone in any country anywhere equally to US citizens, regardless of their citizenship, then I may start to see some value in it. Until then the US military complex appears like one side praying to win and looking rather stupid from a world perspective.

lonewolf379th said...


Quit with the "holier than thou" attitude, you could have gone into the Peace Corps.

You're just lucky that they abolished the draft.

What you have here is...

Animal Farm II


No holy intent here, just honest-to-goodness conscientious objection against the miliary complex. Think what you will, but I will not sit down and be quiet. Yeagley is the dolt, not me.

The_Editrix said...

Well, you know my opinion. I am not against the military. It is, in my opinion, a sad necessity. The pacifism of the Thirties let become Hitler a major power and cost millions of lifes in the end. On an individual level: if good people fail to defend themselves and by force, if necessary, evil will prevail. But to romanticise war is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen, specifically by somebody who is sickly and unable to serve his country himself. As I said in my blog entry, did this drooling, bloodthirsty old crone, whose only way to physical and mental fulfilment is very likely the thought of sweaty, gory young men, ever even TALK to a soldier who saw combat? I mean a real soldier, not the cartoon characters who are fouling up his idiot site.

Yet he cultivates this ridiculous "warrior" image on the strength of his non-White identity, thus exploiting his minority status just like any other "darkie" of whom he so disapproves.

I hope I am allowed to place this link here. I have no idea whether you have seen this particular blog entry, but I have a hunch you'll like it.

And you don't need to apoligise for you stance. You can be proud to live in a free country that allows conscientious objection. It is a sign of strength if a country allows that. But of course, that rabble at Yeagley's site that advocates public hanging and is sooooo hot on "freedom" have a different definition of that particular value, like, say, the freedom to publicly hang their political opponents.

And now excuse me, it is time for my morning shower anyway.


Yup, I am not apologetic for my position. I'm against the military complex. Like I said, if the military was purely defensive, and if they defended human rights (not just American rights) I'd be in favor of it. But the US Military is being used for aggressive purposes and to steal power and resources from other people, including even the American populous. As for lonewolf, you are trying to give me advice that appears to be thinly disguised attacks, “attack-advice,” just like Yeagley does ... and seem to avoid any hard looks at Yeagley's behavior. You also appear to have a difficult time understanding my position, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. So I conclude, if you are not Yeagley himself, you are a Yeagley apologist. Goodbye.