August 30, 2008

Yeagley Abysmal Ignorance of Reason

from the Bad Eagle blog

We recently came across this little nugget of pseudo-reasoning by David Yeagley, that we thought should be unpacked for our devout readers. It once again demonstrates the apparent lack of thoughtful commentary by the piano doctor. Instead of following from evidence in support of an idea, Yeagley seems to be skipping the evidence and running straight to a predetermined conclusion. Not very scientific I must say. Also, not very reasoned. First, here is the entire gist of Yeagley’s argument condensed into its major components:

YEAGLEY — “Liberalism is a social form of sublimated male homosexuality... The birth process is a terrifying separation from unity. Remaining psychological life is a prolonged attempt to recover that lost, original unity... Obviously, liberalism is always about destroying one’s society, one’s country, even one’s race. This is all Freudian.. it is clearly homosexual in nature... Religion, politics, sociology, these are the realms of today’s giant, popular affectations of male homosexuality... Liberalism cannot escape its place in the history of behavioral science. It is sublimated male homosexuality” (August 2008).
So let’s look at these bit by bit, and consider each in turn. First:
YEAGLEY — “Liberalism is a social form of sublimated male homosexuality.”
Homosexuality is a product not of social learning but of genetics, and of natural selection. Many creatures living today are self-replicating without male-female interaction, and some contain both male and female components necessary to replicate. So first off, homosexuality is not a social form at all, it is a genetic factor at the level of a loosely defined group of individuals (not at the species nor race level).

So the question becomes, is this group predisposed by homosexuality in some way toward liberalism? Clearly, the answer must be no. Why? Without even considering the rather slippery definition of what exactly “liberalism” may or may not mean (and what Yeagley himself thinks it is), it is entirely possible to disprove Yeagley’s mistaken assumption without any definition at all.

One has only to look at folks who consider themselves to be non-liberals and look for homosexual evidence. If we see homosexual evidence in radical neocons — such as Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Dennis Hastert, or Bob Allen for example — there must be a negative correlation with homosexuality as an exclusive factor for liberalism.

And if liberalism is perhaps but “one” (among several) outcomes of homosexuality, where potentially, non-liberalism or even conservatism might be yet another outcome of it, one would need to further prove how homosexuality and liberalism actually connect (which Yeagley can’t). Simply ‘declaring it so’ in a blog, is not proof of anything. There is no proof; homosexuality is a product of natural selection. So Yeagley is simply wrong on this point.

In the comments (below), Rob provides another obvious insight as to why Yeagley's speculation is completely bonkers:
ROB — "If 'Liberalism is a social form of sublimated male homosexuality,' how does Yeagley explain all the liberal females? You know, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro, Patricia Schroeder, Ann Richards, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, and on and on."
Yes, Yeagley obviously cannot, has not and will not address these issues. He has first off already decided his agenda, and is thereafter looking for whatever ways he can intellectually muster to support his narrow assumptions. This is not scientific reasoning, it is cherry-picking for propaganda purposes only.
YEAGLEY — “The birth process is a terrifying separation from unity. Remaining psychological life is a prolonged attempt to recover that lost, original unity.”
For this little gem, we see faulty causal significance at work in Yeagley’s pseudo-reasoning. “Faulty causal significance” is a mistake (or a purposeful literary trick in the case of propaganda) of an assumed factor which has been falsely reduced into a singular and particular cause of something observed. In truth, Yeagley has championed a particular cause for his declared result, but there may be many other, and potentially greater, causes not properly studied and rather omitted from Yeagley’s consideration.

From Yeagley’s above assertion, we might assume that everyone goes through their entire life suffering from separation anxiety directly from losing their mothers in what might otherwise be considered as human ‘maturation.’ People mature in different ways and at different rates. We need not be scientists to see the truth of this fact. Why pin all of human suffering on the birth process, when there is so much other evidence for suffering and loss everywhere in abundance?

No, Yeagley has missed many other events in human maturation that inform our growth. Just to name a few, how about losing our “baby teeth” and what that entails. What about learning to “share” for the first time for those born as an only child? What about learning that flames can hurt you? What about learning that electric wall outlets are no place in which to insert a table knife? What about learning about the permanency of death when a pet or a relative dies? If one is looking for evidence of loss and suffering, there is a ready abundance that has precious little to do with Oedipus complexes, for sure.

No, Yeagley’s assertion has made a proverbial mountain out of a molehill, and failed to account for all the other ways in which loss might inform growth. Further, Yeagley again fails to delineate any link at all between loss and homosexuality, nor between loss and liberalism. He has provided no support at all for his main thesis above, and scientifically it is much easier to see that he is, in fact, mistaken in what he IS asserting.
YEAGLEY — “Obviously, liberalism is always about destroying one’s society, one’s country, even one’s race. This is all Freudian.. it is clearly homosexual in nature.”
The very definition of a liberal or liberalism does not support Yeagley's claims above. Here is just a snippet from the community-defined Wikipedia description on Liberalism:
“Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment... Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property” (Wikipedia 2008).
Do you see anything about Freud, Oedipus, homosexuality, or race, in the above description? No, neither do we. If the factors Yeagley claims are fundamental to Liberalism, or so ‘very’ important to people claiming to be liberals, why don’t these concerns get mentioned first and foremost in this short description? Obviously, liberalism does not harbor any of the ranted assertions of David Yeagley.

And, once again, Yeagley has failed to connect the dots whatsoever: no scientific connection outlined between sexual orientation, liberalism, and race. Yeagley may venture a blog opinion on a causal connection, but of course there isn’t one. Yeagley’s appears (to those not paying attention) that he’s aiming at a scientific target in his ranting, but his sights are faulty. He’s not really looking at science at all, just aspiring to commence a spectacle without any supportive evidence. Not only is Yeagley’s approach lazy, it is not well reasoned.
YEAGLEY — “Religion, politics, sociology, these are the realms of today’s giant, popular affectations of male homosexuality... Liberalism cannot escape its place in the history of behavioral science. It is sublimated male homosexuality.”
From the above declaration, Yeagley concludes that liberalism is historically seen as resulting from a Freudian condition of loss and separation. However, once again, Yeagley has not put forth even the smallest evidence in support of his assumption. Even more, nowhere is there any convincing evidence of historians that share his view, nor are scientists ready to declare the process of natural selection is the result of homosexuality.

And lastly, do practitioners of religion reduce their activities to a central philosophy of homosexuality? I have serious doubts about that claim, I must say. The “Holy Trinity,” maybe. “Jesus H,” perhaps. The big “Dog” himself, more probably yes. But worshiping and praying to homosexuality? I have my doubts. No, it appears that Yeagley’s rants are abysmally devoid of thoughtful reasoning just as much as scientific understanding.

Again, it is painfully clear, that Yeagley’s made-up persona, the icon “Bad Eagle” who never actually existed as Yeagley claims he did, does not makeup for the conspicuous lack of science and reason in his blog rants. The influence of his so-called “Bad Eagle” icon suggests nothing to our eyes but continued embarrassment and foolishness. If I had been Bad Eagle, I’d be rolling in my grave at this point over Yeagley’s wild and unsupported pontifications. But not to worry, “Bad Eagle” is also unsupported by the historical evidence, so no real harm done. If Yeagley wants to keep his imaginary friend, c'est la vie.

August 27, 2008

David Yeagley’s Abysmal Ignorance of Science

from the Bad Eagle journal

It always amazes me, the pontificator preaching up a storm of fire and brimstone over issues that are rather meaningless. It just goes to show how little David Yeagley really comprehends of modern science. So while the piano doctor digs up scriptural fossils to defend his outmoded ideals, scriptural myths bearing almost no relation to reality of life (beyond the apparent human ‘myth-making’ impulses), he gives us two clear evidences that Yeagley does not understand the basic facts of life.

First, Yeagley seems to labor under the delusion that people are “by nature” predisposed to violence and to not care for each other. Yeagley believes that people left to their own devices will succumb to some ‘primitive’ notion of “animalistic” behavior that is cruel and mean. This mistaken assumption is unsupported by evolutionary science however. Altruism is one of the driving factors in the evolution of all mammals, achieving a great level of speciation in human beings in fact.

YEAGLEY — “The human mind is a solipsistic thing, by nature. Selfish, self-oriented, self-idolizing, scared, and as a result, greedy, hording, aggressive toward others, careless of others... This is all nature, I do believe. Only deeper values, when taught, or even if learned the hard way, can help the condition. The right religion can help... It's something we're told by someone else, someone older, who's been there first” (March 2007).
When Yeagley rants on about the need for “religion” or “deeper values” to “help” the condition of altruism (above), he is absolutely not understanding the basic evolution of mammals in general, and humanbeings in particular. Inbred into us, through millions of years of evolutionary process is a drive to ‘be nice’ to each other, it is the way we have survived and is one of the genetic factors that enabled our continued evolution from earlier species.

To put it another way, we may have long died out as a species, if not for our intensely strong genetically ingrained predisposition toward cooperation, mutual altruism, even love if you want to use that term. In other words, evolution has provided us with a basic desire to care for each other, and evolution has not only achieved this result in humans, but has surpassed itself by extension beyond our species.

It is easy to see (outside of our species, but within another species), for example, that wild wolves care for other wolves. Wild animals (not domesticated) care for each other, and this is true across many species. But what is fantastic about humanity is that as a species, we show a quick readiness to show altruistic behavior beyond (outside of) our own species. We care for non-humans as much as we do for others of our own tribe. If another species is hurt, we go out of our way to care for the creature, and feel genuine sadness at the unfortunate circumstance.

Evolution has made us this way of course, we are altruistic and largely moral creatures by nature, whether we culturally have any religion or not. In fact, one has only to look at the (non-religious and unprompted) altruism of atheists to quickly see that religion is not a necessary prerequisite for genuine caring and good morals. David Yeagley is wrong about his “low” idea of nature, and the inherent predisposition toward being mean; I am nearly certain that Yeagley simply spouts this nonfactual rhetoric to justify his own tendencies toward segregation and, well, being mean.

A group is said to be a “species” when those creatures have the ability to interbreed. A “race” is actually a subcategory of species, in that other (less-important) differences are present, but the ability to breed is still present. Actually, according to the science of genetics and the evolutionary history of the human genome, we are almost nearly all genetically similar to each other, all of our races without exception. To reiterate this, humans are more alike than different on the genetic level, and our “differences” at the level of race are insignificant for evolutionary processes.

This means that we do have differences, of course, but we are more different as INDIVIDUALS than we are racially or genetically different at the species level. As individuals within the same race we are more different from each other, than we are beyond our own race where we are actually really alike. Racially we are not very ‘different’ at all, it’s only as “individuals” that we see some differences, across all of the races.

Evolutionary Fact: There is greater diversity between us as individuals, than there is across our different races. And we know, therefore, that evolutionary altruism is shared genetically by all races — not just the races that Yeagley mistakenly thinks belong to a 'higher order.' Molecular science has disproved Yeagley's genetic assertions.

And secondly, David Yeagley does not understand evolutionary science regarding speciation, and the types of sexual variation resulting from the natural world. There are species which procreate with themselves, although that sort of messes up the scientific definition of species as being able to breed ‘with others’ in the same group. But homosexuality is created at the level of the genomes with their coded proteins that direct the processes of growing any individual.

Though homosexual individuals may not breed with each other as a closed group, they are the product of nature, “God’s nature” if you are so religiously inclined. The homosexual group is not a race, nor a species, but a group only as a subset of individuals with a particular protein makeup in their genetic code. X and Y chromosomes are directing the growth of body parts, appendages, and so on, and they also create a recipe for sexual orientation. Being homosexual is a nature-made reality, a “God ordained” reality (again) if you are religiously inclined.

Scientifically, being gay is not an illness nor a disease, but simply "nature" at the level of individual gene selection, unlike altruism which is present in all of us as a species. Though Yeagley, apparently with his nose buried in the scripts of long dead patriarchs, is all too willing to turn a blind eye toward these obvious facts.

With his anti-Indian, anti-minority, rants of white supremacy, Yeagley is merely digging up the fossils of buried feelings of inferiority and insecurity in an ever-changing world. The evolving world frightens little david.
YEAGLEY — “Never mind the real agenda of homosexuality, the recruitment of children. It isn't about homosexuals wanting equal rights. It's about homosexuals wanting to see more homosexuals. They disguise the 'malignancy' of their nature. They simply try to describe themselves in everyone else's terms, to appear normal, in the name of "equality." But that's not the end of it. (Would that it were.) This is only a step in the progress of the disease” (May 2004).
Though one might have some sympathy for Yeagley’s scary plight, that should be no reason to coddle the idea that the world must stay put in it’s ignorant misogyny, racism, sexism and religious dogma of segregation and warmongering. No, it is far better to discover and embrace the truth, and learn the facts of history, evolution, scientific reasoning, ever appreciating the wondrous nature of our changing lives.

Yeagley simply does not know how to appreciate “change,” and he seems not to be the altruistic type that nature intended him to be. But there is hope for the rest of us. And I’m glad to see that the “traditional” groups of American Indians are not cowering under the limited conceits of neocon Christianity, and are standing proud for the rights and citizenship of the “two spirited” ones (who live in every tribe across the country). Indians have a long history of respecting, even admiring gay folks, and I am sincerely happy to see this turn of events in Oregon:

Kitzen Branting (wearing red top) and
Jeni Branting plan to be married under
a new law adopted by the Coquille Tribe.
They are recognized as domestic
partners in Washington and will be
married in the Plankhouse (behind
them) on the Coquille reservation
next May.

COOS BAY — Kitzen and Jeni Branting have been in a committed lesbian relationship since high school and plan to get legally married in Oregon next spring. Yes, in Oregon.

True, voters amended the state Constitution constitution in 2004 to allow marriage only between only a man and a woman. And Congress outlawed gay marriage more than a decade ago.
But Kitzen Branting, 25, is a member of the Coquille Indian Tribe on the southern Oregon coast.

As a federally recognized sovereign nation, the tribe is not bound by the Oregon's Constitution. The tribe recently adopted a law that recognizes same-sex marriage and extends to gay and lesbian partners, at least one of whom must be a Coquille, all tribal benefits of marriage.

The Coquilles (which tribal leaders prefer to pronounce KO-kwell) are probably the first tribe in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage, says Brian Gilley, a University of Vermont anthropology professor and author of the book, "Becoming Two-Spirit: Gay Identity and Social Acceptance in Indian Country."

Many Native American tribes historically accepted same-sex relationships... Native Americans are "sensitive to discrimination of any kind," says Tanner. "For our tribe, we want people to walk in the shoes of other people and learn to respect differences. Through that, we think we build a stronger community."

The new law establishes tribal rules for recognizing marriage, whether for gay or heterosexual couples... The culture committee reviewed tribal history and concluded "same-sex domestic relations were accepted with no exclusions from tribal citizenship, the community, auspices or
spiritual activities," reported Jack Lenox, the committee chairman... all but two members of the council and a majority of 14 people who testified in a public hearing supported it, tribal leaders said. "I think it is going to have a very positive impact on this tribe," Tanner says. (Bill Graves)

August 16, 2008

The flushing of Yeagley’s “great white throne”

from the Bad Eagle blog

Boy this one’s gotta sting. Nothing Yeagley can do about it, absolutely nothing.

YEAGLEY — “the seat of power in the world
is white. The Great White Throne, I've called
it. White people have charge of the world”
(Dec 2007).
The so-called “great white throne,” as David Yeagley likens the supremacist concept of imaginary ‘pure blood,’ is soon to be a concept long forgotten. While Yeagley is surely going to torment himself into a tizzy over this news, play the victim, try to diminish the reality of this fact, or otherwise ignore it. But in the secret chamber of his mother’s bedroom-turned-blogger-hideout, Yeagley will probably be fuming about this. A new concept of race is emerging. And, it’s about time, don’t you agree?
YEAGLEY — “The dark races are to become a unified force against
the white races... The darkies are just a tool, a weapon... It's all a
quest for the Great White Throne. And no darkie will ever set on
that throne. There is no intention of allowing the darkies to rise to
any significant power as a people... There is no threat to white
power, and there is no guilt about it" (Jan 2007).
The fact that we are mixing racially is no big deal in reality, it’s always been happening of course. The Harry Potterish whigmaleerie of “pure blood,” to which Yeagley so desperately cleaves, is Lucius’ly ludicrous. A dawn is coming and ushering in new definitions and ideas of race, much less stigmatizing and way way less important. That is the kernel of hope in this happy news. Read on.

US white population a minority by 2042: census bureau

“Whites in the United States will no longer be a majority of the population by 2042, nearly a decade earlier than previous projections, according to US Census Bureau figures released Thursday. While 65 percent of the US population is projected to be white in 2010, those numbers will start to decline around the 2030s as white deaths outpace births, according to the figures.

The figures show that in 2042, whites will be outnumbered by Americans who call themselves Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Previous projections said this would happen by 2050. By the mid-century mark, when the United States is projected to have a population of 439 million people, 54 percent of the population will consist of racial minorities...

Researchers pointed out that some sections of the United States already have reached the point where whites are minorities, such as the states of California and Texas... And along with the overall growth, the number of mixed-race Americans was expected to triple, reaching 16 million, or close to four percent of the population.

‘Within the conventional definition of race, white, black, Asian, minority versus non-minority, this is a big change,’ David Waddington, chief of the Census Bureau's population projections branch, told the Times.”
Our True Ancestors

August 8, 2008

David A. Yeagley proven again as White Supremacist

from the Bad Eagle blog

It’s no difficult feat to stumble across Yeagley’s blog and discern it’s racial stereotyping, and negative denunciation of minorities and women. It’s no longer necessary for Bad Eagle dot Org, or the ever vigilant David Yeagley dot Org, to even speculate on that theme any more — it’s been proven true an abundance of times. So articles like this one are now simply adding to the already competent file of Yeagley white supremacist ranting.

YEAGLEY — “It’s about lower class... using sex as a savior for dark men... they bring over boat loads of Africans, Middle Easterners, and sometimes Asians... The dark men... start making babies right a way... What’s the solution? Mass sterilization? ...Are they hopelessly craven for the dark man? Are they completely morally abandoned? The white race in imperiled, for sure... That means the whole country” (July 2008).

His latest piece of hatred though is particularly vile, attacking a victim in Pennsylvania for no other reason than being a Mexican by birth and salivating at the brutality of the attack. Obviously no, “compassion” is not a word you would ever find emanating from Yeagley’s gums, except for his confused romanticism of war, or his white corporate sense of patriotism with a smack of giddy smugness.

What is equally recognizable about Yeagley’s latest rant is the clear example of internalized racism. Yeagley is himself mostly German and Mexican in lineage, which has already been established in verifiable fact. Yet, Yeagley froths at the mouth over Mexicans in the most foul ways. It is a product of some denial and the bloggers criticizing Yeagley at his blog are now discussing NPD. I truly think they are onto something here; I’ll let them explain. Bravo Tom and Ray!

Tom (click to enlarge):

Ray (Click to enlarge):