June 2, 2007

David Yeagley fancies himself a "Super Comanche"

from the Bad Eagle journal

David Yeagley loves President Bush and all things war. Yeagley is a “warrior,” you see, a “real” man, a man’s man, the kind of “man” that allegedly “honors” women by relegating them (in rather disgusting ways) to a secondary status while, in the same breath, hoisting his own mother onto a pedestal as the most honorable of the species. Yeagley treats “warriors” likewise, hoisting his own image onto a pedestal while disregarding and more often degrading the true warriors who still fight for justice and compassion.

David Yeagley is a fake warrior, never serving, and never growing up Comanche. He is a “small, unworthy” white piano player masquerading as an Indian curiosity (an Indian who is championing all things non-Indian) to garner his own praise from other non-Indians. He is a zoo specimen, a white guy made-up to look like a plastic Indian sitting in a supremacist zoo, patting racism and genocide on the back for a job well done.

What exactly does Yeagley think of Bush? From the quotes below, we see he regards Bush as a “Comanche warrior,” as “strong,” as “brave,” as “smart,” as a “nobleman,” as a “great man,” as a “humble man,” as a “gentleman,” as “faithful,” and as “charitable, responsible and compassionate.” But we also see that Yeagley is a relativist, no right, no wrong, but reliant on a misguided position that 'whosoever is stronger' is the one who is “right” and “moral.”

Yeagley — “Yes, Reagan and Bush are definitely Comanche warriors. They understand that ultimate strength is in defense. Opponents of the anti-ballistic missile defense system are not brave men. Their misguided ideology threatens the safety and survival of America herself” (12-13-06).

Yeagley —
“The world belongs to the strong. If you are strong, then you can be charitable, responsible, and compassionate. But pulling your moral pants down and exposing yourself with some elaborate apology for irreparable ‘wrongs’ does not accomplish justice, nor represent any worthy sentiment... This is about strength. Strength alone decides what’s going to be considered right or wrong in a society” (6-24-04).
Using Yeagley’s illogic, Bush actually did ‘too little’ by resisting the genocidal urge to purge this country of all of its Arab Americans. Apparently, for Yeagley, denouncing citizen rights is more “charitable, responsible, and compassionate” than applying a measure of restraint and actually discerning the multicultural reality of America.
Yeagley — “What would you have done after 9-11? I don't think Bush did enough. I would have deported all Arab Muslims immediately!” (1-25-07).

Yeagley — “Bush is a nobleman... Bush is a great man. He may have made some really wrong decisions, but he is a great man, personally. Humble, and faithful. Maybe he just makes some wrong decisions. That's all” (1-24-07).

Yeagley —
“President George W. Bush delivered his 6th State of the Union Address. He carried himself as the strong man he truly is. He has a steadfast character, and invites courage from others. He is a humble man... He is a gentleman, and very fine one... He does not belittle his enemies” (1-23-07).
Okay, so we see Yeagley is sucking on the kool-aid with regards to praising a draft-dodger who masquerades as a “war” president. We can psychologically understand this gutter-level praise, because it’s similar to the praise Yeagley himself hopes to achieve: being lifted up as a fake warrior. But seriously, Yeagley is missing major points of contention with his pedestal fantasy.

For example, Bush is notorious for seeking retribution on those who oppose him; remember Valerie Plame Wilson who was endangered in retribution when her husband exposed the major lie Bush was using to justify the Iraq war? It was unequivocally ‘deadly retribution’ by putting American security and innocent lives at risk for political reasons, and it was maliciously vindictive on Bush’s part.

Don’t think Yeagley is THAT out of touch? Okiedokie, devil's advocate then, take a closer look at his mistaken Valerie Plame declarations back in 2005, and the 180-degree reality today. It is painfully clear (for him) that Yeagley is sorely lacking in discerning the truth of the world events unfolding before his very eyes, and he either lies deliberately about them or is ever-so 'slow on the uptake.' In either case, he is absolutely proven to be out-of-touch, and largely because he values loyalty to his deluded agenda over the actual facts on the ground. Sadly, it is a case of blind loyalty over personal intelligence, and goose-stepping over honest inquiry.
Yeagley — “Never mind that Plame was not a covert CIA operative when her name was mentioned. Never mind that there was no law broken... It's all a plan to bring down the Bush Administration, specifically, to end the war effort in Iraq... This is...evil... One of the most important principles in a successful society is honesty. It's time to remember one simple command: ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’ Exodus 20:16. Has the country completely forgotten this?... Wilson's mission was wholly cosmetic, to come back and smear the Bush administration and the war effort” (Oct. 25, 2005)
MSNBC — “In the ‘unclassified summary’ ... cleared by the CIA ... Fitzgerald provided new details about Wilson’s previously classified activities at the agency. In January 2002, she was working for the agency “as an operations officer” in the Directorate of Operations’s Counterproliferation Division (CPD) and serving as “chief” of a unit with responsibility for weapons-proliferation issues related to Iraq. In that capacity, he added, she traveled overseas in an undercover capacity. ‘She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries ... When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity … At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States’.” (Newsweek, 2007)
No, the “character attributes” that Yeagley attaches to Bush and his administration are not admirable in any sense, because those claims themselves are based on false perceptions of reality, a cherry-picked pseudo-reality of loyalty-over-truth. For Yeagley, loyalty trumps truth, and strength trumps democracy, just like “commerce trumps peace” as Bush has revealingly decreed. Yes that’s right, when asked why he allows American corporations to sell clusterbombs to Israel so they can bomb Lebanon civilians, Bush actually replied “commerce trumps peace.”

Fundamentally, Yeagley is not in touch with reality of Americans nor the country. For one who seeks to masquerade as a “patriot,” being out-of-touch with the object of your fantasy seems a major problem, not to mention the denial of his adoption into the Comanche tribe as a non-Comanche. It appears that Yeagley entered the Comanche rolls by way of a Comanche stepmother, an observation supported by stark omissions on his own birth certificate; so claiming to be blood Comanche when the reality does not support the claim, seems a startling inconsistency in his wishful masquerade.

Of course, no one ever accused Yeagley of telling the truth, even when explicitly faced with contrary facts; his invention of a new “harmonic theory” was a blatantly false claim, bordering on the impossible to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of music and mathematics. To accomplish this feat, Yeagley would necessarily have to invent a new “E=MC2” that when applied to music theory would satisfy the mammoth feat, and of course he has refused (and failed) to show the slightest hint of his “new” theory.

No, from his imagined intellectual, psychological and patriotic pedestal, David Yeagley is striving to become “Super Comanche,” a Comanche hung with ripping cahonjes, able to jump small “darkies” without a dingle browned (“Darkies” is a monolithic term Yeagley eagerly applies to all non-whites).

However, while Yeagley mistakenly wraps his brand of white supremacy and misogyny up in the American flag, he is actually having the opposite effect; by touting unpatriotic characteristics as ‘American’ ones, Yeagley is largely ‘turning off’ Indians and non-Indians alike to the more salient democratic principles such as justice, civil discourse and negotiation.

Interviewing a non-Indian Hollywood writer about the justifications of the reservation system in America (Yeagley's "Robert Avrech on Indians"), is like interviewing Britney Spears on what it’s like to become an honorary member of the Menza tribe. The foundation of the effort itself is so illogical as to make it nonsensical and largely a waste of brain power. Yeagley doesn’t seem to mind though, so long as it bolsters his blog image as a Super Comanche and gives the "impression" — if not the substance — of a newsworthy interview.

When wrestling with the unpatriotic nature of a self-proclaimed patriot, it is preferrable to think of him the way Sinclair Lewis would have characterized him, as one of those “chaplains-at-heart, who, if there was no war in which they could humbly help to purify and comfort the poor brave boys who were fighting, were glad to help provide such a war.”

Yeagley endlessly recites biblical passages as if it therefore qualifies him to openly rant against “darkies” and “women” without restraint, all the while directly avoiding terms like “racism” in favor of subjugating the “darkies” before the “white throne” of the corporate military.

Just as Lewis had pointed out for an earlier generation, for this newer generation Yeagley — too — exhibits the same theft of honor the fascists claimed “under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty ... [and] To their purpose they could quote not only Scripture but Jefferson.” Dishonor mascerading as “honor” and anti-democractic turgidity mascerading as “patriotism,” this is the everyday ruse of Yeagley’s fantasy as a so-called Comanche iconoclast.

Rather than championing the destruction of negative stereotypes, he rails against the Indians who desire the removal of this negativity, chastising Indian people for not bowing to non-Indian power structures. To Yeagley, Indian ‘resistance’ is the culprit, and he is arguing to remove that stumbling block is to become truly ‘charitable, responsible, and compassionate’ like good ‘patriotic warriors’ ought to be: the 'ten little' patriotic Indians.

Yeagley argues that removing the negativity is itself negative, and argues that Indians must stop it. But, Yeagley never considers the double-negative inherent within his own logic. Indian people do not simply argue against negative stereotypes, but are more often striving for something supremely life-affirming and powerful — a positive goal — to achieve self-determination in the face of historic genocide, or what is now identified as the American Indian holocaust.

If Yeagley had a genuine desire to be helpful to Indian people, he could first acknowledge the holocaust in America instead of semantically denying it. Instead of bespattering Indian people, Yeagley should work toward the positive empowerment of Indian identity and culture in the continuing face of the genocidal attitudes that still linger in today’s America. Working to get rid of the negative stereotypes and degrading mascots would be the manly thing to do, and the strong thing to do.

As a holocaust denier, Yeagley makes the singular mistake of regarding Indians only in the past tense, in historic terms; the “problems” of Indian people, today, are largely concluded for Yeagley, over with and done with. The holocaust is over. The “best thing,” according to Yeagley’s logic, is to move onward by forgetting the holocaust altogether, as if discrimination against Indians does not happen these days in contemporary America.

As a result, anyone pointing out America’s rather racist practices, Yeagley will label them a “commie,” “homosexual,” “unpatriotic,” “leftist,” “lair,” or some other Yeagley moniker for being morally or psychologically “weak” in his eyes. The truth however, is that Yeagley, himself, is the weak one, by any peaceful standard one chooses to apply. War and violence are not a solution for making peace, and Yeagley’s blind loyalty to this unconstitutional US President is not only anti-American but morally weak.
Joe Conason —George W. Bush has repeatedly asserted and exercised authority that he does not possess under the Constitution he swore to uphold. He has announced that he intends to continue exercising power according to his claim of a mandate that erases the separation and balancing of power among the branches of government, frees him from any real obligation to obey laws passed by Congress, and permits him to ignore any provisions of the Bill of Rights that may prove inconvenient.

The question that we face in the era of terror alerts, religious fundamentalism, and endless warfare is whether we are still the brave nation preserved and rebuilt by the generation of Sinclair Lewis — or whether our courage, and our luck, have finally run out. America is not yet on the verge of fascism, but democracy is again in danger. The striking resemblance between Buzz Windrip [the demagogic villain of Lewis's novel] and George W. Bush and the similarity of the political forces behind them is more than a literary curiosity. It is a warning on yellowed pages from those to whom we owe everything” (2-23-07).
If we followed Yeagley’s blind lead, we would move ourselves toward a bleak dead-end, violence begetting violence, and the cleaving to things phony and misleading like fake warriors and warmongers-in-chief. We have seen, time and time again, Yeagley’s American Indian holocaust denial, global warming denial, and numerous artistic falsehoods, such as: a new harmonic theory (which would be a near impossibility), composing the "first" American Indian opera (which someone else achieved over 70 years ago), and writing the "only" epic poem in the 20th Century (just google this claim to discredit it). And, as is the case with Yeagley’s malfeasance in becoming a public nuisance, we cannot turn a blind eye toward the arrogant hubris of the White House.
Dubya — “I have always said that I will listen to the requests of our commanders on the ground.

Major General John Batiste —
“Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out.
Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women. Senator McCain, protect America, not George Bush” (5-25-07).
The courage it takes to say what Maj. Gen. Batiste said, and his courage is far beyond what Yeagley would understand, let alone attempt himself. Waging peace is not as easy as waging war; and, Yeagley’s own incipient ‘warrior’ fantasy is nothing but self idolizing for personal gratification, but at the expense of the truth and ultimately the country.

Yeagley is anti-American and anti-Indian, but all gussied up to appear like a Comanche patriot — a supreme falsehood. If a true military commander like Batiste can admit he is now a better man for leaving the service, what does that say about Yeagley clinging to his fraudulent “warrior” facade? It says, unlike Batiste, that Yeagley is extremely weak.
Major General John Batiste — “Sure. Thirty-one-year Army veteran, two-time combat veteran, first Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, multiple tours of duty in the Balkans serving in Bosnia, Kosovo, commanding Army formations from platoon through division, commanded the First Infantry Division, most recently, for three years, an incredible career. But gut-wrenching decision in the summer of 2005 to put my uniform up and leave an institution I loved, because I realized I could do more good for my soldiers wearing the suit that I am today than the fatigues that I wore some time ago” (5-25-07).
The genuine weakness of David Yeagley is apparent to most who visit his blog, especially American Indians who have unwittingly ventured there. Yeagley doesn’t help Indian causes, he hurts them. Yeagley does not make knowledgeable and coherent comments about reservation life; Yeagley is fundamentally not Comanche and certainly not from a reservation. While denying the genuine reality of Indians today, Yeagley prances around in his whitewashed hollywood ‘warrior’ stereotype — Super Comanche — declaring the early demise of Indian people in favor of his hyper-veneristic and hyper-nationalistic fantasy.

The astute American Indian who goes by the name of “Angry Indian” gets it correct when writing about the indigenous people in America and the indigenous people in Iraq. While on the other hand, Yeagley, “Super Comanche,” remains flippantly clueless. The Angry Indian is absolutely right on this comparison, and Yeagley should be starting a new bachelor’s degree over at angryindian.com instead of wheeling that piffling piano degree around like a phallus-schlinging-dwarf in front of Snow White.
Angry Indian — “When President Bush says he’s prepared to stay in Iraq “until the job is done,” those poor Iraqis have no idea just how long he means. But the Lakotas do. The United States government has been “stabilizing” the Great Sioux Nation and promoting democracy for 139 years. Analogy is a dangerous form of argument, never precise. But sometimes analogy can give us insights into our history, and in this case, it’s worth considering: Maybe Iraq isn’t just the next Vietnam. Maybe Iraq is the next Pine Ridge. A good starting point is the recognition that the voice of our “better angels” is forever stumbling over the more powerful impulse of greed. Oil in Iraq. Gold in the Black Hills. As a good friend likes to remind me: We didn’t invade Iraq because they grow broccoli” (2-19-07).