Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn: Why We Lose

Published by carolyn on Sat, 2014-08-16 18:05

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Carolyn Yeager discusses a number of subjects, beginning with Dr. Rudolf Frercks "Racial Policy of National-Socialism" and how it impacts on what we're experiencing today. Other topics are:

  • Consorting with the enemy, as with Facebook, Youtube, Hollywood, major league sports;
  • White Nationalist Richard Spencer teams up with anti-White Alexander Dugin;
  • Copyrights and copy-cats - more on the Platterhof speech;
  • "Eric" calls in and counters most of my points, thus presenting a perfect example of what I say.

Image: Screen shot of Mark Zuckerberg, creator of Facebook and young multi-billionaire who is in a mixed-race marriage.


That caller Eric seemed to be overly impressed with VKC's pretense that there is something new or important in the Platterhof speech. There is nothing new in it, so far as racial policy is concerned. It is entirely consistent with the NSDAP's longstanding official position on race.
The only reason why anybody would believe that Hitler was saying anything new is lack of knowledge about what the NSDAP's position was, but I have solved that problem. The NSDAP's position on race, at least since 1933, was much more nuanced than Anglo-American war-propaganda (which is where Americans get most of their ideas about National-Socialist Germany) would have one believe.It was publicly acknowledged at least as early as 1933 that the German folk consisted of five races (which could also be called subraces of the Caucasoid race).
This information creates a problem for VKC, however, insofar as it shows her as a pontiicating ignoramus. Look for her to continue blowing smoke and trying to change the subject, as has been her mode of defense.
It is true, when translating a German text, that sometimes one has to add information that isn't in the German, or use several words to convey the meaning of a single word, because otherwise the Anglophone reader of the translation won't get what is being said. If there is concern that one might be over-interpreting or taking liberties with the text, one can always enclose the added information in square brackets. Also, very often I will break up long paragraphs to make the information more comprehensible, since some of the older German texts especially tend to have godawful long paragraphs. So, I understand the concept of making a translation clearer than the original. Sometimes it's necessary.
I would worry about the inclusion of an apology for this along with the Platterhof speech, except that even what's there doesn't support the conclusions that VKC wants to draw, because her conclusions are based on her own ignorance of the background, and consequently misunderstanding of the significance of what Hitler said.
If I were in her shoes I would shut up about that Platterhof speech. She should be quite embarrased, if she even has the capacity for shame.

"So, I understand the concept of making a translation clearer than the original." -Hadding

But does that include giving the English reader (for example) a different version of the text than what the German reader of the original has?

For example. Hitler was speaking extemporaneously, from just some simple notes probably. The only copy of the speech is what the stenographer took down as he spoke. Thus, the sentence structure was probably erratic at times, and other speech patterns that are awkward in writing ... but shouldn't that be reflected in the translation too, to give an accurate rendering of what the Generals/Officers heard? And of what German readers have available to them?

It seems to me quite dangerous to start "improving" on the original, although from my own experience I certainly do understand the desire to do so. I am more than ever hopeful of getting this speech and having it translated by someone I trust, and have requested not to "improve on it."

Sometimes literal translation just doesn't work at all, and sometimes, e.g. in the instances where multiple meanings of a single word are being exploited, an exact translation isn't even possible. A literal translation from German is almost always hard to read. Translation is an art. The translator has to try to find a way to convey the meaning of what is being said while also producing a text that is not hard to read.
The Mannheim translation of Mein Kampf, with its preservation of some phrasing that seemed natural in German but awkward in English, is an example of how a very literal translation can actually do an author a disservice. Many things they just don't say the same way in German, even apart from the difference in language. For example German often use nouns to represent action where we would use verbs, and they use a lot of extended modifiers, which are usually impossibly awkward in English, if rendered literally. A strictly literal translation, at least from the older literary German with which I am most familiar, will usually produce a clunky result.
The extreme case of this would be Luebke English, named after a President of the German Federal Republic, Heinrich Luebke, who would speak English by translating word for word from German, producing ridiculous results.
The problem here is that you don't trust the person presenting the translation, partially because you have been put on notice that some liberties have been taken, and partially because you have other evidence that Veronica Clark is a liar. If you don't trust, then you have to check whether the liberties taken have been excessive.

The caller Eric should know that one doesn't have to swim in toxic waste like the rest to make them realize of the fact that they do. He strikes me as a follower, to put it nicely, rather than the opposite.
Also, thank god for Carolyn Yeager's excellent counter research to V. Clark's anti-German propaganda. I, and I'm sure all real Germans, appreciate it very much.

Thanks Michael.

Nice to hear from you again.

On page 954, there is an English version of the Platterhoff speech. I don't know if it is complete or 100% accurate, though.,%20993%20S.,%20Text).pdf

I already commented on that somewhere. It's a different date, a different speech altogether. Hermann Giesler mentioned this July speech in his memoir.

Carolyn ~ A clip of yours intro'd the show yoday.

Well, I sound real good on there - you cleaned up my pauses and and memory failings. However ... "Stalin was both good and bad, in my opinion." ?? I certainly can't go along with you on that at all.

I agree with Carolyn that Carto should of been left to steady the course of the IHR. We would today still have an institute with a journal, pushing revisionism forward. I think all who joined in the Weber insurrection now clearly see this, Fritz included. Letting Weber take hold has been an utter disaster, as we see today. Having that drunk Jew Cole née Stein as a friend is no recommendation at all.
Weber continues to survive due to bequests of good natured dead people, and donations from misguided people, who can't see the forest from the trees, on how the indolent actions of Weber, have helped the Jews and hampered revisionism.

You're right that the roadblock in the way now is Weber, and that's who should be addressed, not blasting Carto. Not so long ago (in the past couple of years) Berg called The Barnes Review magazine "a comic book" instead of a serious history journal, so you can imagine Carto doesn't like that.

The thing is, Weber did a bait-and-switch. The people like Dr. William Pierce who put their support behind Weber et al. against Carto circa 1994 did so (apart from the fact that Carto was clearly in the wrong legally) partially on the premise that Carto wanted to turn the JHR into something lighter with broader appeal like the Barnes Review (which came a couple of years later), whereas Weber supposedly wanted to keep the IHR and its periodical hardcore and true to its original mission. Subsequently, after Carto had been defeated in court, Weber abandoned his stated intention.

Veronica Clarke is a freak, a liar and a charlatan whose only expertise seems to be in parting fools with their money. What really shocks me is that so many otherwise respectable people have gotten themselves involved with her.
I chuckle that the author of a book which required the translation of a Hitler speech into English has absolutely NO knowledge of German, as anyone who heard her pronunciation of Stosstrupp on the John Friend show a couple of weeks ago can attest to. I still listen to that segment of the show when I want to have a good laugh: Stosstrupp, Stosstrupp, Stosstrupp. Hahahaha!
I wonder if Veronica Clarke can tell us how many of her black Nazis were members of the NSDAP, and just how many Rhineland bastards were in the ranks of the SS?
Thank you for another very entertaining show, Carolyn. If your efforts to expose Clarke's scams prevent only one person from being conned into wasting money on her mendacious books then the effort will have been worth it.

I endorse Carolyn's really essential critiquing of the white nationalist movement which is currently in tatters and it's members in despair. I believe she alone is keeping a thread of it alive because out of the chaos she continues to refine the substance; ever sorting the wheat from the chaff and aiding us to see the wood for the trees. She remains the leading mind in our cause. 
When a movement has had it's roots cut away by numerous laws, negative media, think tanks, university and government departments all under the control of the Jews over many decades, people are floundering around with no central institutions, leader or dogma which is why the death of the IHR is so significant.
Nature deplores a vacumn and that is easily filled with operatives like Veronica Clarke who is fundamentally anti the white identity and race, furthering multiracialism, and worst of all playing around in the most disreputable and impertinent manner with our central intellectual and enlightening source of hope for the future Adolf Hitler, seeking to Judaise his message, defame his character and abilities and confuse new seekers. The Dugan meeting is just one example of why the sword needs to be wielded against the wishy-washy traitors within our own ranks before anyone else come the revolution, if only it comes.

endzog ... thanks for your commendation. As always, it seems too much, but I will say that I don't see who is saying the right things, as far as I want to hear them, so that is why I say what I do.

"... worst of all playing around in the most disreputable and impertinent  manner with our central intellectual and enlightening source of hope for the future Adolf Hitler, seeking to Judaise his message, defame his character and abilities and confuse new seekers."

That is very well put, endzog. In fact, magnificent. Playing around with Adolf Hitler, distorting what he is and what he means ... yes, that is serious damage being done and should be opposed vigorously. I really hate to say it but cowardice has taken hold in a big way. People are looking for compromise which just seems to be a way to turn to others for leadership ... in the hope that someone can supply some.

However, it's also true that the way has been blocked in so many directions. When you wait too long, perhaps, the opportunities are no longer there.