David Yeagley's Reign of Errors
David's Reign of Errors.
As long as bigots such as David Yeagley fill the cyberwaves with half-truths and lies regarding blacks and women, I'll keep saying something about it.
Here are several articles written by him during the past five years that prove my point:
His 2001 article regarding American Indian alliances with African Americans. Instead of solving the problems facing American Indians today, he chose to attack American Indian alliances with Blacks.
Another article deals with White women. That White women have no pride. Yeagley is a misogynist who doesn't trust women period.
The other two articles could just be straight out of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation. He wrote those articles out of jealousy, hate, and envy. It obvious that Mr. Yeagley hates Blacks, esp. Black women. He thinks that Black men wants a White women, which is totally false, given the fact that over 90% of Black men are married to Black women and that residential and educational segregation is still a fact of life in both the White community and communities of Color.
Liberal critics of Yeagley got it right on the money regarding Mr. Yeagley's racial/sexual insecurites:
On man wrote on Sadly, No!:
"'These racist black people just want a role model victim, with mistreatment wreaked upon the weakest of the weak: the black woman. All she has to do is cry, “rape by white male!” and she rules the world.'- David Yeagley
When I initially read the above statement I was appalled, then I realized that you are guilty of the crime that you are accusing the black community in Durham of committing: race baiting. Not once in your article have you made mention, or attempted to justify your statement by pointing out the actions of “racist black people”. Mr. Yeagley it seems quite base of you to complain about the racism against white students at Duke when your article adds fuel to the flame of racial unrest attached to this situation.
But, exotic dancing—and then to cry “abuse”? This may be pushing victimhood beyond reason.
Regardless of the profession of the young lady involved the evidence leads one to believe that a crime was committed. Society may not view exotic dancing as a job for an upstanding individual, but that gives no person the right to violate another soul in such a manner. If someone were to attack a professional boxer should they not be charged with assault? Neither the “fervor of youthful hormones”, “heat of passion”, or percentage of alcohol in one’ bloodstream should ever be used as an excuse for such actions. For your own personal safety I would request that you not use any of those excuses when attempting to explain the situation to a survivor of a sexual assault.
In closing I realize that your article is more of an opinion piece than actual news reporting, but if you were to approach the situation with a woman’s or an African American’s point of view, you may have a change of heart. In addition Duke University should be applauded for taking a firm stance on discipline with student athletics and sexual assault on campus. Hopefully other Universities and their athletic departments will take not and follow the example.
More vile views from David includes the notion that White and other Nonblack women are virtuous while Black and "Mulatto" women are not. He has written vile things on his website.
Here's another view from The Liberal Avenger:
David Yeagley digs the hole a little deeper
Not content with embarrassing himself on the Frontpage website, David Yeagley is now lashing out at his critics, including me. You may remember the putrid bile Yeagley puked up a few days ago. Discussing the subject of the Duke rape case in Frontpage, he wrote this:
These racist black people just wanta role model victim, with mistreatment wreaked upon the weakest of the weak: the black woman. All she has to do is cry, “rape by white male!” and she rules the world.
Weak? How about “strong” — as in a strong manipulator?
I criticized Yeagley for that and other offenses, as did several other bloggers:
Gray Does Matter and GDM Follow-Up
Echidne of the Snakes
Alas, a Blog
That got Yeagley’s attention. He penned a response and submitted it to David Horowitz over at Frontpage. Unfortunately, Horowitz decided that he’d embarrassed himself enough for the time being, and declined to print it.
Before watching the sad spectacle of a hateful man digging an even deeper hole for himself, let’s take a look at Yeagley and the Duke rape case itself.
One thing becomes crystal clear when reading Yeagley’s work: he’s crazy. Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction sent him over the edge:
Jackson and Timberlake should therefore be charge with a mass felony, and immediately convicted, and fined, and sentenced to appropriate jail time. The penalty should be in accordance with the number of people affected. Now, is it only the people in the Houston stadium that saw it, or also all the people of the state of Texas, or all the people in the United States and in the world who saw it on TV? Well, this is clearly beyond calculation.
However, the immeasurableness of the crime should not mean that it is ameliorated by the quantitative inconvenience. The act was committed, children were involved. It is a felony, plain and simple, with millions of witnesses.
I call for a class action suite against Jackson and Timberlake, and swift retribution.
Now, if none of this happens, then we can only expect more and more “indecent exposure” of all kinds. Texas is “alert” to the whole sex industry, and bringing a case against Jackson and Timberlake should not be considered out of line, but first in line. Check out Texas law, then check out the laws of every state which broadcast the Super Bowl. Don’t let them hide behind “entertainment” or “free speech.” The Super Bowl incident is an onslaught of our national security, as vile and threatening as Islamic terrorism.
That’s what Yeagley wrote after having a couple of days to recover. The day after the Yeagley was nearly struck blind by the spectacle of Janet Jackson’s breast, he was a bit less coherent:
Now it isn’t necessary to attribute intense anal-oral fixation to the race of Janet Jackson, nor amoral avarice to the race of the producers. This behavior speaks eloquently for itself. Suffice to note that sex-sellers tend to be syndicate-oriented. They’ve created their own kind of sex slaves.
However, that these vices should become halftime entertainment at the SuperBowl bespeaks the social irresponsibility in the NFL. Of course, the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders set a rather explicitely profligate example beginning in 1972. Auxillary pro-football entertainment has gone downhill ever since.
An FCC legal investigation? Is that what makes it right or wrong? The law?
History has shown that sex, out of control, disintegrates a society. Laws are indeed necesssary to protect vice-ridden greed breeders. “Whore mongers” the pimps were called in old English. In a way, the homosexual enterprise itself is another kind of whore mongering. They want anything and everything to be “legal,” and therefore accepted as “right.” I’d call that selling sex, to the government.
A day later Yeagley was a bit more in control, as you can see in this exerpt from “The Dark Teat“:
These certain “black” people apparently want to dominate society through their sexuality, and with the right contacts, like the media, and the law, they may succeed. White society is literally being forced to accept the “black” body as equally sexually desirable. Any natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, any Freudian sexual aversion, and any sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined, political effort. America is being told what is sexually attractive. America’s sexual emotions are being dictated, through the media and the legal system, no less.
You get the idea. Yeagley hates women, and he hates African-Americans. And he’s crazy. Yeagley believes that there is a conspiracy afoot to force him to feel attraction for blacks, and for women. And he’s going to resist to his last breath.
Now, let’s look at the Duke rape case. The team called a stripper for one of their keggers. She says she was raped by three team members. An examination showed anal and vaginal wounds consistent with rape, she had strangulation marks on her neck, and her eye was swollen shut. A DNA test was inconclusive, sending the He-man Womanhater’s Club into a tizzy. Apparently, they think the word “inconclusive” means “lying bitch.”
On to Yeagley, still diggin’ that hole. Yeagley also jumps on the word “inconclusive,” and quotes one of the suspects’ lawyers as though the litigator was carrying tablets down from a mountain:
The black female sex provoker who claimed she was raped by Duke University lacrosse team students was apparently mistaken. That’s right. No DNAfrom any lacrosse team member was found on her body, anywhere. That’s the latest news report, released April 10, 2006. “There was no DNA evidence that show’s she was touched by any of these boys,” announced attorney Joe Cheshire, representing the team captain. What a crushing blow to feminists, racists, and other social provocateurs.
Yes, a skeptical statement from a defense attorney is indeed a crushing blow. How can the prosecution ever hope to recover from such a setback? And of course, Yeagley can’t resist labels like “black female sex provoker.” Does he imagine that such rantings bolster his case?
He then goes on to attack me and other bloggers directly:
Yet my article was denounced as vile racism and sexism by numerous blogs. The very thought of anyone not completely supporting the poor black female goaded some bloggers to madness. My position was “deranged lunacy,” (Sadly, No!); “putrid bile” (Appletree); “vomit,” “sewage,” (Grey Does Matter); “racist misogynist conservative,” (Femeniste), etc. There’s more from Stephanie’s Journal (“Haterade from D.Yeagley”), Echineofthesnakes (“a magnificent jumble of patriarchal myths and beliefs,” and Alas (“an incredibly racist, woman-hating, stripper-hating article”), and others.
These same professional accuser types are not so quick to respond to the facts, however. The Durham police lab reports will provoke nary a word from them, except some further accusation of white conspiracy.
I’ll allow the reader to compare my criticism of Yeagley to “The Dark Teat” and decide who’s been driven to madness. As for conspiracy theories, I honestly haven’t seen any accusations of a white conspiracy coming from those who support the victim of the crime. Instead, I’ve seen thoughtful posts like this one from Red State Feminist.
And if Yeagley wants to send me a check for what I’ve written, then I’ll happily confess to being a professional accuser type. Until then, I’m only an amateur.
Of course, Yeagley continues to whine about how unjustly our elite universities treat their white male students:
I decried the fact that Duke University punished the lacrosse team, severely, before any charges had been filed, and before any critical evidence had been proven regarding the behavior of the boys. It was enough for the media that the accusation had been made. The university, terrified of the accusation of racism, suspended the team for the season, and the coach resigned. This I denounced as contrary to all American legal tradition. It looked like vicious racism from the black woman and the media—against whites.
What was the severe punishment meted out by the University? They suspended the team’s season, cheating these fine young men out of the chance to play another half dozen or so games of lacrosse.
And what was their crime? Why, nothing more than underage drinking and hiring a stripper in a university-owned house, not to mention a general unwillingness to cooperate in a police investigation. That’s all.When I was in college, I was commodore of the crew team (that was our pompous designation for the club president). One year, the team was nearly disbanded because of an episode in which members threw oranges at one another. When I was 22, I was nearly kicked off the team for drinking during a bus ride home from a race. Only a contrite apology saved my place on the team.
I can tell you for sure that if we the administration had become aware of an episode like the one at Duke, the team would have been disbanded. Even if there were no allegations of rape, and even if the stripper had been white, such behavior would not have been tolerated at Gonzaga University. So it’s a bit hard for me to feel sorry for the guys who hooted racial slurs, raped a woman, and refused to cooperate with the police.
The main reason I wrote about Yeagley’s original piece at all was to bring attention to the fact that Frontpage magazine is an open sewer of racism, and that David Horowitz’ bleating about “political correctness” on college campuses amounts to little more than an attempt to legitimize bigotry. Horowitz claims that he doesn’t promote racism, sexism, or homophobia, but he’s quite happy to give space to the paranoic rantings of bigots like David Yeagley.
So besides Horowitz, who else thinks that Yeagley’s tripe is worth reading? Let’s take a look at the comments to Yeagley’s latest screed:
Doc as a white woman I am with you on this one. I believe the negro woman is racist. I dont think white men go after negro women as oftern as that individual thinks. White men are more prone to go after asian or chicano women than negro. I have only seen ONE couple where he was white and she was a negro in my lifetime of almost 36 years. Negros LOVE playing the race card unlike our peoples and I am tired of it.
Yes, whites would never think to play the race card, unlike the negro. Who else is reading Yeagley?
Racism is NOT limited to Blacks. In fact, here is a prime example of American Indians playing the game: (link to “Christian” website)
Racism is not limited to blacks. You can say that again.
There are also comments about why there shouldn’t be intermarriage among the races, and other standard bigot talking points. This is the kind of person who thinks that Yeagley’s articles are worth reading. But Horowitz isn’t a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe, right?**********
I should clear up a couple of things that I wrote about in my first critique of Yeagley. He said that the victim in the Duke rape case was not a “person of note,” which seemed like a bizarre factoid to interject. As it turns out, Yeagley had previously written about an allegation of assault leveled by Paula Abdul. Abdul was not sexually assaulted, so the cases are completely dissimilar. Apparently, Yeagley thought his readers would immediately make the connection because Abdul is a black woman.
Also, my photo caption implied that Yeagley is a white man who believes that white men are oppressed in this country. I thought this was true at the time, but in fact Yeagley is a Comanche Indian who thinks that white men are oppressed in this country.
(cross posted at appletree)
You see, Mr. Yeagley has an agenda that is both racist and sexist.