Message from @Bravos
Discord ID: 544574133976170516
I mean what do you see as important parts of it
Ideals that prioritize the race, the family
anything higher than that is unnatural
We aren't abstract creatures, we are of matter and our ideologies have to prioritize our nature
National Socialism is sane in its symbiosis with nature
It promotes what is strong and eradicates what is weak
I am a theist
what's your beliefs when it comes to sex before marriage and those sorts of things
Women's chastity needs to be preserved
The family is the priority, not an individual's right to be a degenerate.
why is chastity important?
what has marriage to do with sex being less degenerate?
anyway, I agree with everything else, but we don't hold Christian values.. modesty is good and sex can be a distraction but it's not something that is morally wrong
Chastity is important moreso today than ever before
because women cannot pairbond as effectively after having multiple sexual partners
Sexual liberation of women gives women power over men, and can select men with their values
basically I have slippery slope arguments
You might talk about the current stiuation but it's not relevant for the concept of national socialism
this would not apply in national socialist state
In that environment social pressure would keep people from being promiscuous
I don't fully disagree with you, but I don't think this as black or white honestly
at least openly
having several sexual partners isn't bad per say
that's some christian thought
I'm not Christian but, as long as women are controlled it shouldn't be a problem
it's not something to strive for, but it's not wrong in itself, and lets not make this a circle argument.. I get what you mean with attachment
So what about single mothers?
Single mothers . . .
They chose a bad man or they drove a good man out
assuming he didn't die
These unfortunates I would use as a warning to society
They would have to rely upon charity
It's acceptable in national socialism, it's not morally wrong
If I had to choose, even the weak among my people would have to be discouraged
I would not encourage the behavior that results in single mothers by rewarding those that had a part in it
Even White people are capable of degeneracy, I believe in eugenics whole heartedly
*"It is self-evident that the total state views marriage as the foundation of the family and engages itself with all emphasis for the protection of marriage. But it demands just as empathetically the respect for the nation's life-will and hence respect for the will for child in every congenitally healthy woman. In other words: for the nation, the congenitally healthy child of an unmarried woman is infinitely more valuable than a cretin, who has resulted from a marriage “blessed” by all churches. For the nation, an unmarried mother, who in defiance of all moral and bourgeois-social inhibitions happily affirms her child, is preferable to a married woman who intentionally excludes herself from the blessing of children or is even only without blame infertile. The total state, in its population policy as well, looks at the whole while morality sees only the portion, the exterior. Moralists see in this realisation and demand of the total state the danger of a loosening of morals, of a degeneration, perhaps even of an intentional immorality. But that they in their morality, for example downright demand abortion, they do not want to admit. But instead, they like to preach “abstinence”. They thereby place themselves under the shadow of the cross, which combats life-will itself and in its radicalism demands the dying out of the “sinful” drive for life."*
- Kurt Eggers