July 11, 2008

David Yeagley’s Trouser Eyes

from the Bad Eagle blog

Nothing shocks me anymore about David Yeagley’s lack of basic decency and compassion. His weird logic notwithstanding, his rants are marred with racially based comparisons and denigrating language about anyone who is not as pale as a bucket of milk. Just take a look at this jolly crumpet:

YEAGLEY — “Apparently, all a black man has to do is grab his own crotch, or verbally refer to his male organ, and white women swoon... they seem to bring nothing but low, immoral life with them, wherever they are. It is slavish sensuality, the antithis [sic] of spirituality. Even the black religions of Africa are not spiritual, but sensual. But, if the other races are willing to be absorbed into the darkness, then we can't really blame black people, can we? Why, that would make us all as weak as we accuse them of being. Whites think they can market black denigration, without being degraded themselves. Now, that's really racism” (July 2008).

First of all, what is Yeagley doing staring at people’s crotches in the first place, and do we really need to read about it. It appears to me that it’s not the crotch owners who are doing anything unsavory but the crotch watchers who then write about it on the web — but to each their own.

What is really meant by Yeagley’s phrase “slavish sexuality”? Is a person’s sexuality something that naturally succumbs to slavery under a slave master? Is david on some secret fantasy ride with his Dom? Or is Yeagley attempting to setup a false dichotomy within a person’s own sexuality, where no dichotomy truly exists? It appears Yeagley — once again — has not really thought this issue through very well. But I suspect that clear delineation was not part of Yeagley’s intended agenda.

And if “slavish sexuality” is a nonsense concept, it cannot be rightly used as a foil against any type of “spirituality” let alone the “ antithis [sic] of spirituality” — I’m guessing Yeagley really meant “antithesis” of spirituality. Largely though, I’m not convinced there is such a thing as a spiritual antithesis anyway. Considering that spirituality means many things to many sincerely spiritual people, only the most narrow and archaic-minded stereotyping of spirituality would even remotely function as Yeagley suggests with his false dichotomy. Both from the extreme diversity of history and the cosmopolitan reality of today’s world, Yeagley’s notion simply makes no sense at all.

No, Yeagley’s entire ‘rant’ has nothing to do with spirituality, clear thinking, or crotch gazing. In the end, it’s really just another race-baiting diatribe from a seemingly disgruntled white supremacist. The revealing part of Yeagley’s entire blog is this little nugget toward the end:

YEAGLEY — “other races are willing to be absorbed... Whites think they can market black denigration, without being degraded themselves. Now, that's really racism.”

Whites are marketing black denigration? When did this happen, was I in a coma? How did I miss something this important!

Actually no, it’s only white supremacists that are promoting the denigration of blacks, of which Yeagley apparently counts himself a member. Accepting and open-minded folks already regard these blatant racist distinctions as wholly unnecessary and quite fruitless as a fixation for both blogging and crotch gazing. It’s only “the Yeagleys” of the disgruntled blogosphere that take issue with race at all, unfortunately dumping their “great white throne” weltanschauung on everyone else’s lawn — no pooper scoopers in sight.

But the most important point is this, if racism is one group denigrating others as inferior, than Yeagley has setup an obvious and rather stupid bait-and-switch. “Now, that's really racism,” rants Yeagley, arguing that it is racist for white folks to mix it up with blacks. But he’s really just ratcheting up his brand of bait-and-switch hyperbole.

In actuality, mixing it up with blacks is the exact opposite of racism. By definition, ‘absorption’ between cultures would be necessarily inclusionist or multicultural — not racist. Only from the perspective of a dedicated white supremacist could you label the natural and evolutionary integration between whites and blacks as “racist.” Only a genuine bonafide white supremacist would ever make that altogether useless, and rather malcontented, distinction.

The truth of the matter is this: there is no such thing as racial purity, and consequently no such thing as a white race, by logical extension. Even further, the United States of America could not have been founded on any great white toilet, as Yeagley asserts, because no such reality did, nor could it biologically, ever exist.

Every American patriot, in every square inch of America, is of longtime mixed heritage resulting from a very long evolutionary process of natural selection, stretching back millions of years. One evolutionary branch splits into more limbs, and splits again, all joined from a beginning trunk at a juncture one might call an evolutionary crotch. Can you say “how’s your garden groin?”

But seriously, every human on planet earth has the same root DNA that descended from the beginning of life itself. All people on earth are genetic relatives of the first chromosomes that originated all of us. Those shared DNA materials from the first organism are still lingering around inside of us right now — literally. Grapes have it, Whites have it, Apes have it, Mites have it. We all have it.

So not only must we regard Yeagley’s bait-and-switch as dumb science; also, it is entirely useless toward explaining anything at all. The only possible use for Yeagley’s hyperbole would be to incite divisiveness and promote hatred where none need exist. Once again it seems David Yeagley has demonstrated himself to be of the ‘white supremacist’ persuasion.