Posted: Thu 19 May 2005 19:38 Post subject: David Yeagley's Hateful Views on IRs and Multiracials
I've come across a nutcase Indian-identified guy named David Yeagley. He has a website extolling Indian pride and identity while condemning interracial relationships and multiracial children. His articles appear on VDARE, a white racialist website, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, etc.
Here's an article, "Korean Actress Exposed," from badeagle.com:
Quote:
Korean Actress Exposed
It wasn't her body that was exposed, but her race, or, shall we say, her 'real' race. Korean actress and producer Lee Yu Jin is down and out in South Korea. Why? The word is out: she's half American. She's a mixed race. Her white father was an American GI. She's 5'9", and was always suspect because of her height.
"People ask why didn't I come out earlier and why this is such a big deal, " the 27-year-old said. "It wouldn't be anywhere else, but Korea is still a closed society where people like to talk about the purity of the race."
Lee Yu Jin isn't alone in her plight, either. There's the popular singer "Sonya," television host Jennifer Yung Wisner, and basketball coach Kim Dong Dwang. Bi-racial persons are considered a downer, in a place like South Korea (to say nothing of Nort Korea).
Lee Yu Jin (right) from the 2002 film, "Winter Sonata."
Janet Mintzer, president of Pearl S. Buck International, says, "My impression is that there is more discrimination against Amerasians in South Korea than anywhere else in Asia and that it has not improved significantly." PSBI, a Pennsylvania-based foundation, is credited with coining the term "Amerasian," and works with the biracial children in not only South Korea, but also the Philippines and Vietnam, among other Asian countries in which the U.S. military has had a presence.
So it seems that American "democracy" is actually a code word for intermarriage, multiculturalism, and the dissolution of any distinctions. Never mind the GIs and the predicaments they've caused, Mintzer's group certainly represents the Communist use of the term, "democracy," which Communism is very astute and aggressive to use. (Remember it was the great Students for a Democratic Society, SDS, which spawned the infamous anti-America terrorist group, the Weathermen, in the late '60's.)
In other words, if South Korea claims to be a democracy, it should promote inter-racial marriage, multiculturalism, and "equality" of all things human. There must be no distinctions, save for the wealthy tyrants who run the Communist regime. For Communism, "democracy" is the open door to dictatorship.
But never mind about that a minute. Lee Yu Jin has an important role in the recent Korean horror film, "Bunshinsaba" (Ouiji Board), directed by Byeong-ki Ahn (March, 2005). In a scathing review, Yu Jin comes out as "the saving grace" in the otherwise run-of-the-mill grade "c" Asian horror film. "Her big expressive eyes and soulful looks" are not something we normally expect from the Oriental face, right? So her bi-racial 'condition' is what makes her a hit?
So let's ask the question: is love of race, love of culture, love of country, all to be considered immoral now? Has the Communist ideology taken over the whole world? Is any thought of race to be hopelessly consigned to the Nazis? Is Communism then anti-everything that a human being is? Is there to be no escape from the accusation of being a Nazi?
I say, love of race, ethnicity, culture, minus the maniacal, satanic vision of Adolf Hitler, is the only saving grace of the world. Without it, in some multiculturalist, globalist world without boundaries, the world will simply become an emasculated, mass wimp, under the control of a few mega-wealthy tyrants.
There is a reason for differences. This is to keep the human race separated into smaller groups.
Love of race is the only 'saving grace' left in the world, and the Communist, multinationalists, and globalists are desperate to rub out all natural differences. They are anti-race, anti-language, anti-culture, and anti-God, Who in fact created these differences, according to the old Hebrew version of the world (Gen. 11). The Leftists anti-Semitic Jews of the world can say, "We've come a long way, baby!" but it's a long way in the wrong direction, seems to me. Man always wants to separate that which God has brought together, as in marriage/divorce, and to bring together that which God has separated, as in language, culture, and race.
Mixed raced people can't help what they are. Their's is no fault. But there is no need to repeat the same, or to advocate more, or to idolize such a condition by perpetuating it. When you realize you're on a wrong path, even if you didn't put yourself on it, the only dignified thing to do is to get back on the right path.
The need in the world today is love of one's own people, without hatred for another's. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is both prescriptive and proscriptive. You can't love your neighbor unless you love yourself.
Posted by David Yeagley
He has attacked Janet Jackson in his various articles since the Super Bowl incident and is extremely obsessed with "blacks" and their activities instead of concentrate his energies upon helping the few remaining "Indians" he claim to help.
Here's the kicker, he's multiracial (white and Comanche Indian).
Posted: Thu 19 May 2005 19:54 Post subject: David Yeagley's Hateful Views on IRs and Multiracials
Quote:
Mixed raced people can't help what they are. Their's is no fault. But there is no need to repeat the same, or to advocate more, or to idolize such a condition by perpetuating it. When you realize you're on a wrong path, even if you didn't put yourself on it, the only dignified thing to do is to get back on the right path.
The need in the world today is love of one's own people, without hatred for another's. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is both prescriptive and proscriptive. You can't love your neighbor unless you love yourself.
Notice he never refers to himself as mixed-race. He denounces interracial relationships and the children they spawn, yet he is a product of such a relationship.
If dilution of the races is the wrong path and it must stop, why doesn't he start with himself. He should cease claiming to be a Comanche Indian, embrace celibacy, or find himself a 1/2 Indian 1/2 white person with which to have children.
Posted: Thu 19 May 2005 21:10 Post subject: Re: David Yeagley's Hateful Views on IRs and Multiracials
G-Man wrote:
Quote:
Mixed raced people can't help what they are. Their's is no fault. But there is no need to repeat the same, or to advocate more, or to idolize such a condition by perpetuating it. When you realize you're on a wrong path, even if you didn't put yourself on it, the only dignified thing to do is to get back on the right path.
The need in the world today is love of one's own people, without hatred for another's. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is both prescriptive and proscriptive. You can't love your neighbor unless you love yourself.
Notice he never refers to himself as mixed-race. He denounces interracial relationships and the children they spawn, yet he is a product of such a relationship.
I agree. But seems to be more obsess with blacks mixing with Indians and Whites on his blog and message board. He keeps obsessing about Janet Jackson which I found strange given his strong "hatred towards" "blacks." He denounce further interracial relationships between Indians and Whites so his "race" can survive.
Another thing, he hardly mentions his white father in his blog. That tells me that he either have a grudge with his dad for having him or he wants his readers to believe that he's a bona-fide Indian, which he's really not.
If dilution of the races is the wrong path and it must stop, why doesn't he start with himself. He should cease claiming to be a Comanche Indian, embrace celibacy, or find himself a 1/2 Indian 1/2 white person with which to have children.
Well from what I'm learning to be accepted as "White" one must scream "Nigger" every two seconds to be "accepted", apparently.............
Explain Please?
Well I meant exactly what I said!
Whites have no culture, no unified history, and not even an ethnic identity that Black Americans have in "African-American". All everyone has is the word "Nigger" (or Negro/Negress as used here).
*************************
And as I've said before, there's a huge problem with Whiteness, not 'Blackness'! And my argurment is not about the fact of some human beings being lighter skinned than others, but its this obession that a person would do anything (and hurt anybody including their own family) just to have the honor of calling themselves one!
Yet everyone here is suppose to fake shock and be appalled that African-American parents shy away from considering their children "Mixed" or 'White'. Imagine if you were a mother at BWWBC and one day you overheard your child calling a light skinned classmate that they had a disagreement with 'Negress'.
All everyone has is the word "Nigger" (or Negro/Negress as used here).
I do not understand. If girlfromthenc is saying that Whites use the "N" word more often than Blacks do, her claim flies in the face of common knowledge and ignores the wealth of data collected by Randall Kennedy in Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word (New York: Pantheon Books, 2002).
All everyone has is the word "Nigger" (or Negro/Negress as used here).
I do not understand. If girlfromthenc is saying that Whites use the "N" word more often than Blacks do, her claim flies in the face of common knowledge and ignores the wealth of data collected by Randall Kennedy in Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word (New York: Pantheon Books, 2002).
The word "Nigger" was a metaphor for anti-Black rhetoric (ie scapegoating Blacks).
P.S.- I've heard AA's say 'nigga', but very few say 'Nigger'.
I've heard AA's say 'nigga', but very few say 'Nigger'.
This confuses pronunciation with spelling. The only Whites who use the word routinely and without shame today are die-hard Southern rednecks. And they (like today's urban Blacks who self-consciously ape their great-grandparents' rural Southern speech) pronounce it with precisely the same Southern drawl, "nigga." When asked to write it, however, literate people of both endogamous groups spell it "n-i-g-g-e-r." One might as well argue that most Blacks say "woostersheer sauce" rather than "worcestershire." It is simply the way that the word is pronounced by those who use it.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 20 May 2005 15:19; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sat 21 May 2005 21:42 Post subject: David Yeagley's Hateful Views on IRs and Multiracials
Stephanie wrote:
People,
Let's get back to the subject at hand, i.e. Mr. Yeagley's racist views.
Stephanie
I agree. Stephanie has provided us with a self-identified American Indian of known multiracial "bloods" who rails white supremacist tripe that Yeagley himself seems to recognize amounts to Nazi "race" theory. From this meaty topic we should knaw out the bones of our own viewpoint.
Might we foresee that self-headdressed "red leaders" of Indians could go on the warpath against the relentless demographics of Indians out-marrying at rates of 50 percent and more? The anti-"race mixing" rhetoric of "red" identity leaders foreseeably echoes white supremacists. The latter notoriously wail for the "passing" of their threatened "pure race" in hyperbolae protesting "genocide." Might the Indian high school boy who went on a Columbine-style killing rampage just a month or so ago not return a reading, sort of, that temperature of "races"-fervor in some quarters that is red hot?
Mr. Yeagley states some positions of "race difference." We should be able to answer these, I think.
Posted: Sun 22 May 2005 23:13 Post subject: Mixed Irony
Have you ever noticed that some of the most obnoxious ODR supporters are mixed whites and light biracials? They must prove their race loyalty by some resorting to "out blacking" the blacks in order to demonstrate their allegiance. When I read this man's articles about mulattos, I think that this man probably feels a kindred spirit with us mulattos in a perverted way. What I see is a Mestizo man denying his white heritage and resorting to "out Indianing" the Indians. Sound familiar?
What’s Up With Dark Men?
By David Yeagley
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 26, 2002
WHITE WOMEN ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, desirable creatures on earth, judging from the way dark men crave them.
A black man loves white women, said Eldridge Cleaver, in Soul On Ice (1968) “Ain’t nothing more beautiful than a white woman’s hair being blown in the wind.”
But a black woman’s hair doesn’t blow in the wind. She only wishes it would.
Black scholar Noliwe Rooks, in Hair Raising (1996), says ever since black women were brought to America, they’ve been trying to look “white.” They try to change their appearance through skin whiteners, hair straighteners, and even bright blond hair dyes.
Psychologists Langlois, Roggman, and Berscheid (Science News, May 12, 1990) say two-day-old infants definitely prefer looking at white female beauty. The sense of beauty is therefore not culturally trained, but inborn.
Western fashion magazines sell the white woman’s beauty. In July 1993, Elle declared itself “the world’s biggest selling fashion magazine.” Elle achieved that status while featuring on its covers not voluptuous figures, but just the white woman’s face.
No other beauty can compete.
Mirabella (Jan. 1995) tried a Southeast Asian model, but with deeply curled hair, not the typically long, straight Oriental hair. The same issue also included a strange-looking “white” girl with a thick, blonde Afro.
A Caucasian “curl” in Asian hair? A bushy Afro on a white woman? It was a PC faux pas in full fashion, so to speak, a perverse, racist notion of “equality.” How can the colored races be equal with the white race if they have to be doctored up to look white?
Entertainment stars like Mariah Carey, or Janet Jackson hardly exploit the Negroid characteristics of black, kinky hair or dark brown skin. Yet they are claimed by the black race. Black can be beautiful, especially when it looks white.
The western fashion magazines simply cannot sell the American black female to whites. Elle even tried Sudanese Alek Wek (Nov. 1997).
But no white woman wants to look black.
Yet no white man dare say he prefers white women. That would be unforgivably racist.
So, as a dark man, I’ll say it.
Superior beauty is in the white race, with its scintillating varieties of color: red, brown, amber, golden hair... green, blue, light brown, gray eyes. In the darker races, everything is always the same, dark brown and black a beastly bore.
The white woman is the prize. To a dark man, marriage to a white woman is the ultimate sign of “equality” in the West. These days the white woman is expected to humble herself before the darkie, or at least to explore her own sexual excitement through him.
Of course, the mere sexual relationship of a dark man with a white woman is no accomplishment, yet it’s a beginning, and racial integration always leads to inter- marriage.
But Hitler was wrong in Mein Kamf (1925), when he accuses the Jewish male of a racial plot. When “the black-haired Jewish youth” finds himself sexually attracted to the fair Aryan maiden, there is no “clear aim of ruining the hated white race” through intermarriage. The Jew himself would breed out, for he is a small minority.
But the masses of darker races don’t fear extinction, because they are the vast majority. The white race is the world’s minority.
Its Judeo-Christian religion allowed the European Caucasian race to advance above all other people; but the darker races now encroach through integration and intermarriage, in the name of equality and diversity.
Pat Buchanan says that there’s something wrong with a race that doesn’t care whether it exists or not. In his new book, The Death of The West, he refers to my article, “What’s Up With White Women,” in which I write about a white girl who has no pride in her race or its accomplishments.
There are dark people who look forward to the end of “whitey.”
I once had terrorist-type neighbors, a black woman and a Middle Eastern man. They hated white people, and expected my American Indian family to feel the same way.
“Fifty years from now, there won’t be any white race,” the husband said.
Maybe Hitler was partially right on “the hated white race” thing, but there’s a big difference in being sexually attracted to a white female and plotting the murderous elimination of the white race.
Truly, the latter would be a crime against beauty, and such crimes are always at the basis of cataclysms.
As Edgar Allan Poe said, (and I paraphrase), Vice is ugly.
CNN and MSNBC are using a number of "mullatos" as anchors on their prime time news casts. This is different from the entertainment industry, where idols tend to be chosen by the audience. There have always been performers of mixed black and white races, who have been very successful. But the people seem to choose whom they want to idolize. In news media, however, it's an 'in-your-face' prospect. The ancor is what you have to look at, if you want the news.
Now, this matter pushes the envelope, really, about the whole idea of whether the Negro race is something other races enjoy looking at, or prefer looking at. This is a sensitive issue, naturally. In fact, it's so sensitive that the laws of America tend to require a non-Negro person to dutifully respect and value the Negro, regardless of any personal preference. The law thus makes a world of hypocrites, in a way, in the name of equality.
But, again, the Halle Berry's, the Mariah Carey's are a matter of taste or choice. But what about the news anchors, the Frederica Whitfields, the Alison Stewarts, the Lester Holts, the Suzanne Malveaux's? These are counting as "black" statistics in the hiring quotas, but, do they really represent black people?
"Fred," as they call her, Whitfield
Remember the famous line from The Color Purple (1985), ""I'm poor, I'm black and I may even be ugly, BUT dear God .. I'm here, I'm here." It looks like, however, that the preference for mulattos in the culturally coerced viewing of TV news stations inevitably says, "Hey, look, baby, you ARE ugly. We have to have 'black' people who look white, in order for this to work." Black is beautiful, as long as it looks white.
Alison Stewart, on and off the news stage
It is a curious predicament, indeed. Now, there are black men and women in politics who are not part of this predicament, like Condi Rice, and a host of others. And they are certainly in media a lot. But they are elected because of their qualities of person, not their appearance. News media, now a form of entertainment, really, has to be concerned about appearance, and, aside from a few sports commentators, the black people choses by the media to ancor are basically mullatos, mixed, and with a lip and nose make-over, look more white than black.
Lester Holt
Seems to me this is should be considered an affront. Where's the Jesse Jacksons, the Al Sharptons, to protest this oppressive, abusive attitude toward true black people?
Suzanne Malveaux, Harvard graduate
There's no question that some of these mulattos are quite attractive, but, there will always be the issue: are they really black? Do they represent black people? Do they look like what black looks like? Does their success indicate that black is beautiful, that the Negro race is pleasant to behold, and the public demands to see it? (And even if the public doesn't demand it, the law will stuff it to the public anyway.)
Mixed races leave mixed impressions, and sometimes it's just difficult to understand what's really happening. Either black people are simply not the preference of other races, and black ain't beautiful, or else there's being a lot of wool being pulled over everyone's eyes. And it's hard to tell whose wool, over whose eyes.
Maybe it's something as simple as this: in every race, there are simply some people that are more attractive than others.
It wouldn't really matter, if it weren't for this pesky PC problem in America, where "equality" means no discretion. In the case of the mulattos, we have a cover-up discretion against less attractive people--of any race! Bring on the uglies! Let's call for the misanthropes! We want uglies on TV as anchor men and women. That would be true equality.
Although she was raised to identify as a light-skinned black woman by her Afro-Cuban mother and Irish-Austrailian father, she now identifies as biracial. It is an option that simply did not exist in America until fairly recently.
I've noticed that "whites", "hispanics", and "blacks" proudly claim her. I think this is progress.
You shouldn't have to choose one group over another.
I feel that Soledad really respects her blended heritage. You've got to respect that.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
