Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Why Minorities Can’t Lead America

by David Yeagley · January 28, 2010 · 26 Comments ·

Barry Soetoro (often called “Barack Hussein Obama”–may his name be changed, inshallah) is a profound example of the inability of a minority to lead a majority, and the impropriety of such an assignment. That such a disconnected, alien individual should be put in charge of the greatest nation on earth simply demonstrates the imbalanced introspection, and the foolishness of self-righteous idealism to which that great nation has drifted. “Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked…then he forsook God, which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation,” to quote an ancient Hebrew (Deuteronomy 32:15).

It is the special liability of greatness to fail in self-understanding, to credit itself for being, and to deny the true source and origins of its power. But, on the personal level, or on the national level, success is more accidental than created, more circumstantial than achieved. Those to understand something of the Creator, understand something of the nature of greatness. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. (Ecclesiastes 9:11.)

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

A bit much? Lincoln’s words in a 1858 debate with Stephen A. Douglass. Astounding? Maybe not. For the entire quote, see:
The Liberty Tree.

The seat of power in this world was been created through the white race. Through it’s connection with the true God, by predilection or by choice, the scepter has be held in white hands. “The Great White Throne,” we have called it, metaphorically. The notion that a foreign race, a godless heathen, could successfully occupy that Throne is a notion that reveals the godlessness that has grown up in the white race, particularly in America. It is the expression of a self-congratulatory, self-idolizing, and self-righteous sentiment, born of a profound displacement, yea, ignorance, of the true God. God created the nations, and the ethnicities, and the races. To dismiss this would seem ominous, (to assign such a purpose to Christian faith, blasphemous).

It may be pawned off as an act of transcendent charity, sharing the Great White Throne with an irresponsible, dubious, black juvenile–who clearly has no idea of what he’s doing, or even supposed to do, but it is not true charity. It is merely self-idolizing on the part of whites. It is goodness gone too far. It is the generosity of centuries finally made into a self-awarded badge of honor. While it may seem the apogée of of nobility, while it might even appear to be self-sacrificing, putting a alien Negro (who is not American in any real sense of the word) in charge of country is the epitome of self-destruction. It is in fact ignoble, and disgraced. This is always the final result of self-righteousness. In this case, it is a white race who has neglected to honor its fathers, a nation who has taken credit for its own status, denying the faith of the founders, and the role God played in their values and vision for the nation. The sons play with the riches, without cherishing the discipline it took to earn them. The sons toy with honor, rather than earn it.

That the race through whom power was made in the world should offer the seat of that power to the weakest of the weak, may provide a ‘jolly good show” for some moralistic, philosophical fireside pipe-smoking conversation in some quiet, dignified parlor in an out-of-the-way hunting mansion in Britain, but, the entertainment is nigh too costly. Can the white race recover from its extraordinary kindness?

The fact is, if the whites don’t recover, it spells disaster for the dark races of the world. The Third World depends on the great White Throne. It is in the best interests of the colored races to follow the whites, not try to lead them. It is not an expression of “equality” for the whites to offer power to the coloreds. It is the expression of condescention, and a self-destructive condescention at that. And, again, any power freely given, inappropriately given, improprietously given, to the darks, disables them from improvement. They are thus robbed of the lessons for their own learning–the want of which is the cause of their dependent position in the world.

And the most obvious, most crippling element is the inevitability of race, of minority race interests, confusing and denigrating the general status of the dominant white society. There is one thing that all can be sure of: the minority in power has his own minority interests at heart. This is in principle, in policy, and in action. Barry has behaved as a black man so thoroughly, so completely, that this is the nature of his leadership. His approach has been to force the black face in the white face, day in and day out. Though he pretended to decry the idea that “the most important thing is to be a celebrity — it doesn’t matter what you do as long as you get on TV,” this has been precisely his approach to presidency. He obviously feels that the best thing he can do for himself and for Negroes is to put his face on television 24/7. That way, white will get used to blacks, and maybe even forget the blackness, like Chris Matthews. Equality will finally be achieved. was assessed recently by an Ethiopian seer by the name of Kidist Paulos Asrat (Camera Lucinda). Asrat title her piece, “Indians will be Indians.” She determined that, for all my conservative efforts, in the last analysis, my first interest was in Indians.

David does this, to a certain extent. But, here starts the contradiction. Despite a professed love for America, I think David, naturally, loves Indians first – and best. So he has to find ways to incorporate the defeat of his people with their uncomfortable and humiliating lives in modern America. Hence, his strange, and constant, discussions of the subliminal effects of Indians on America, and even the world.

I shall not challenge this profound insight, but rather employ it as an example of the truth of my own words in reference to the Great White Throne, and the impossible notion that any but a white person could successfully occupy it. I cite the Amharan seer as acute assent.

I will add, however, that my notion that Indians are exemplary is only in the matter of nationhood. Indians have demonstrated what it means to love and cherish your own people to the point of sacrificing. Indians would never allow or want a non-Indian person to be chief. Indians would never accept much less elect a non-Indian as a tribal chairman or governor. Look at the case of Quanah Parker, the government-appointed “chief” of the Comanche. He was hotly hated for this un-Comanche position. It was contrary to all Comanche tradition. It wasn’t our way. Plus, Quanah was half-white, and the white man, the government and the ranchers, took advantage of that fact. And Agent James M. Hayworth assigned a half-dozen body guards to protect Quanah from the Comanches.

Quanah Parker, ca. 1852-1911

(They used to say Quanah took baths in extra hot water to rid himself of his white blood. Well, Barry married an American black woman.)

Posted by David Yeagley · January 28, 2010 · 11:30 am CT · ·

Tags: American Indians · Bad Eagle Journal · Negro Race · Politics · Race · White Race

Read More Journal Posts »

26 responses so far ↓

  • 1 David Yeagley // Jan 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm   

    Here’s an interesting piece by David Dieteman

    Getting Lincoln Right

    Not the focal point of our blog, but, just to anticipate responses to the Lincoln quote.

  • 2 Thrasymachus // Jan 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm   

    How I wish I had this article circa 25 years ago when I was a confused and struggling college undergraduate resisting the Methodist church’s liberal views on integration and miscegenation!

    The church told me my views were “un-Christian.”

    Yet in my heart I always felt that God requires any man to accept himself exactly as the Lord created him and to accept his appointed lot in life.

    In the years that have followed, I have had to learn the hard way that I can only be me and never some other man. And that means also that I can only be a member of the White Race.

    Am I “superior”? Certainly not. But to want to be anything other than exactly what I am is the height of folly and the source of the greatest possible misery and deep unhappiness, as well as senseless anger and unnecessary frustration.

    I have to be me. To attempt to be anyone or anything else is rebellion against God’s Will and that is the very essence of sin. Genuine self-acceptance is the antidote to sinful pride.

    God bless you, Dr. Yeagley!

  • 3 Thrasymachus // Jan 28, 2010 at 3:50 pm   

    I have never quite understood how the modern Christian churches — virtually all of them — fail to understand the obvious truth that if the Creator wanted a uniracial world, that is who He would have made it from the beginning.

    It is the very height of spiritual arrogance to declare that the Creator made a huge mistake in racial matters and that He is now pleading with us to fix the “problem” for him, or to assume that He “meant nothing” and never had any meaningful purpose in creating the nations as distinct and separate peoples, each with its proper place in the world and its own special tasks to fulfill.

    For me, to be religious, I would have to believe that everything the Lord of the Universe does is for a purpose and nothing is pure accident. If the races just “happened” to come into being, for no definite purpose, I’d rather be an atheist, thank you. At least the Theory of Evolution explains race and justifies racial integrity. Why should religion fail to do as much?

  • 4 David Yeagley // Jan 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm   

    Thank you, Thras.

    I think there is great liberty and freedom in accepting oneself. Wasn’t it Sitting Bull that said, If God wanted me to be a white man, He wouldn’t have made me an Indian.

    Something like that.

  • 5 geronl // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:43 pm   

    I never did a good answer from my parents why they named me Geron (after Geronimo). Sure my dads’ dad’ mom was full blood Choctaw, but Geronimo wasn’t a Choctaw. Other than that I think we came from the Irish O’Looney clan in County Cork. We lost our O’ somewhere. I think my mother side were descended from the Polish.
    I really don’t have anything to add to the fine column you posted, just random thinking.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Jan 28, 2010 at 5:19 pm   

    You just added plenty! Thanks.

    I’m not full blood. I’m just theorizing!

  • 7 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:14 am   

    The longer I live, the more clearly I see that true greatness is bestowed on men, not self-made.

    A few of my heroes are (men whose extraordinary talents I wished I had), for their talents alone, Ludwig van Beethoven, Glenn Gould, William Shakespeare, and even Bruce Lee (martial artist). There is no way that what any of these highly talented men could do was anything more than given them by God, despite the fact that they had to work hard to develop their potential. (None of these men used steroids to achieve their energy, so far as I know!) Even the energy they cultivated was ultimately a special gift from God.

    No man can ultimately boast in his achievements, since God has not gifted us all equally. “The race is not to the swift nor bread to the wise.” This is absolutely true.

    Americans teach their children, “You can be anything you want,” and then slam the doors of opportunity in their faces. Nowadays, young white males — white boys — are very often without opportunity or hope for the future — even in Great Britain. There have been professional journalism articles devoted to this: this is not my idea.

  • 8 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:20 am   

    Just one article among many on the problems of discrimination and hardship faced by white boys in a liberal anti-white society:

  • 9 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:23 am   

    Talk about ‘reverse discrimination’! Here’s another news story about the troubles of white boys in modern education:

  • 10 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:29 am   

    Equality: for everyone but the white male child — especially if he’s poor:

    (I cannot find the first such article I read, a few years ago, which was really sad, to say the least.)

  • 11 ETHAKIA // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:36 am   

    “It may be pawned off as an act of transcendent charity, sharing the Great White Throne with an irresponsible, dubious, black juvenile–who clearly has no idea of what he’s doing, or even supposed to do, but it is not true charity. It is merely self-idolizing on the part of whites.”

    Your statement borders on “anti-democracy”. Didn’t this person win the primary, electoral college and the majority vote? The European has had ample time and admits by song his “Pilgrims Pride” of being an American. Voter apathy somehow lost it’s way November 2009. The “borish” display by the red party at the State of the Union address was very evident. A “sit down” protest to the actual truth makes any logical American think aloud, “these people actually believed in George W?” Government cannot change the face of America. It has always been the freedom and the fact that as an individual in this country you can do anything. I am Comanche thru and thru. I am also a citizen of democracy. Do not belittle the power that we do have, THE VOTE. The people voted, the outcome is Obama. Democracy served.

    “An opinion is just that, an opinion”.

  • 12 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:50 am   

    There is an abundance of these article, but I cannot find that heart-breaking first aritcle:

  • 13 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 1:00 am

  • 14 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 1:15 am   

    Another telling article:

  • 15 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 1:19 am   

    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Plato, in the Republic (I wonder how many Republicans have read the book their party seemingly was named after?) states that he is writing this book as an argument against Democracy.

    Personally, I do not believe in modern Democracy by any means. Plato says that the believers in democracy murdered Socrates on trumped up charges — outright lies that could not be further from the truth.

  • 16 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 2:07 am   

    These statistics are very telling:

  • 17 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 4:32 am   

    “Democracy served.

    “An opinion is just that, an opinion”.

    Democracy failed — just as it failed in Pre-Nazi Germany.

  • 18 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 8:13 am   

    It might well be possible for democracy to work — if there are RULES and prerequisites for participation therein. Mass democracy, where everyone has an equal say, unconditionally, is mob rule.

  • 19 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 8:46 am   

    It’s been 20 years since I studied the “Republic of Plato.” I’m learning Ancient Greek now, so the next time I read it, it will be in the original.

    As best I can recall, one of the major themes of the book was how to ensure the quality of leadership. Plato’s greatest concern was to keep corruption out of government. He had worked out a system of discipline, something like in a Buddhist monastery but on a much larger scale, whereby only the most virtuous people could hold power, and the most virtuous of all would be the Philosopher King. ”

    “Virtuous” here means very much more than it would in modern English, of course. Plato actually proposed a natural ‘caste’ system based on proved and demonstrated merit (the system was developed strictly according to the natural endowments of the members of society), to fashion a natural hierarchy that would keep the State in good working order.

    Needless to say, the theories of Plato have never been put into practice. But there might be lessons to be learned from them that could improve even modern democracies, as these democracies are exactly the kind of thing Plato opposed.

  • 20 JackInJill // Jan 29, 2010 at 10:11 am   

    I think it is a good thing myself that Americans elected the great (and I do mean GREAT) Barak Obama by such an overwhelming majority. He is a President for all of the people, not just black people, or people of mixed race, but of all people, period.

    And yes, that means white people. I have even seen videos of little white children singing songs in his honor, songs by the way that were taught them by their teachers-their WHITE teachers, I might add.

    It is time to move past the resentments and the bigotries of the past.


  • 21 David Yeagley // Jan 29, 2010 at 10:44 am   

    JJ, I don’t think it was what we can call an “overwhelming” majority at all. It was first of all highly manipulated by the fraudulent forces of ACORN. Even with that, Obama won by less than 10 million votes nation-wide. That was due to young voters and female voters. You know, the kind that have grown up with forced integration and the planned destruction of race. Of course they’re going to vote for Obama.

    There are people who believe that denigrating themselves, their race, is an act of righteousness. These are generally referred to as white liberals.

    I don’t think this is necessary.

    Where do you think the racial, ethnic differences came from? Is it wise to seek to eradicate them? What would be the purpose?

  • 22 JackInJill // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:38 pm   

    “Where do you think the racial, ethnic differences came from? Is it wise to seek to eradicate them? What would be the purpose?”

    Nobody can possibly know the answer to that first question, Doctor Yeagley, for though of course they came from our allwise, all-knowing God, we can’t presume to know his purpose.

    All races have their strengths and their weaknesses. Maybe this is a part of God’s plan as well.

    Maybe God meant for us to work on building up our strengths and working on our weaknesses to where they too are made into positive forces. Maybe then mankind was meant to grow ever closer together, until eventually we all become one race, with all of our combined strengths but with none of our current weaknesses.

    Maybe, just maybe, this will come about precisely due to the races coming together and becoming as one.

    I’m not saying this is the case mind you, I’m just pointing out that we cannot presume to know God’s will for the long term. It’s just something to consider.

  • 23 David Yeagley // Jan 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm   

    JJ. you might think of me as superstitious, but, I find great meaning in the ancient Hebrew take on the world. In Deuteronomy, there is a statement which seems to apply directly to the matter of divided man:

    Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. Deut. 33:7-9.

    Paul refers to this same verse in Acts 17:25-27. Apparently, the racial and ethnic differences are a communication logistic of some profound nature. The “objectivity” of God can only be perceived through a collective approach, a communal contribution, so to speak.

    In any case, it appears that the diversity is ordained. I can’t see that is it wise to try and dissolve it.

    What you speak of is actually included, I think. The idea of all man kind having universal regard for one another. I think that is a goal. But it seems a spiritual goal, not a literal, genetic goal.

    For, when man is united, he is generally against God. That would be the lesson of the Flood, after which man was divided. (Genesis 11)

  • 24 urchin63 // Jan 29, 2010 at 4:15 pm   

    We have all seen other instances of little children singing praises to their “dear leader, as mentioned by JnJ. Other little ones have been taught, by their WHITE teachers, to sing praises to the perceived omnipotent mortal. The associations brought to mind by those instances are not good in any sense of the word; due to the horrors that accompanied them. Images of little children chanting Obama’s name send a chill down the spine of anyone who assimilates the results of history.

    Harry Reid’s comment that he, personally, was anxious for Obama to run for president because “he is light-skinned and doesn’t have a Negro dialect unless he wants to have one” must have been made in much the same words in the 1800s by auctioneers as they touted the qualities of the merchandise on the auction block. A rich plantation owner would have paid more for these superior qualities as opposed to a run-of-the-mill Negro.

    Harry Reid’s comment and Obama’s election were all about the same things that they were back then. Not a grand Liberal or minority victory in equality; but rather of pure marketability. Obama was “sold” on the same merits of usefulness to his handlers as he would have been in slave-trading days. The only difference is that Blacks have bought the lie. They think that their Liberal overseers are the champions of their freedom and equality. Poppycock!! Liberals only want to be perceived as such, but they can’t pull that off without Blacks agreeing to be their pawns. Blacks blindly stand by their plantation owners to get their rations instead of taking advantage of the freedoms given them a long time ago.

    Rather than contribute to equality; Liberals have obstructed it for decades by using perceived racial inequality to reap political advantages. Blacks are still being sold on the auction block; only now, it is with their full consent.

  • 25 Thrasymachus // Jan 29, 2010 at 9:15 pm   

    This website, “Opposing anti-White Racism,” might be of interest for future reference:

  • 26 lowell // Feb 5, 2010 at 8:48 pm   

    You are a POOR example of an American citizen. I am not a black. Black is a COLOR, Chief Chicken Feathers.
    I am a human being made in the image of God. By the way, the oldest HUMAN fossils come from Africa. When your people were dancing around fires and smoking dope, there was civilization in Africa. Before the white man came.

    And if you INJUNS were so smart, you would have invented gunpowder and firearms.
    How did YOU get off the Rez, anyway?

You must log in to post a comment.