Message from @Bravos

Discord ID: 544574133976170516

2019-02-11 17:01:30 UTC  

@Bravos what's your views on national socialism

2019-02-11 17:02:09 UTC  

I mean what do you see as important parts of it

2019-02-11 17:02:42 UTC  

Ideals that prioritize the race, the family

2019-02-11 17:02:50 UTC  

anything higher than that is unnatural

2019-02-11 17:03:27 UTC  

We aren't abstract creatures, we are of matter and our ideologies have to prioritize our nature

2019-02-11 17:04:12 UTC  

National Socialism is sane in its symbiosis with nature

2019-02-11 17:04:34 UTC  

It promotes what is strong and eradicates what is weak

2019-02-11 17:04:55 UTC  
2019-02-11 17:32:13 UTC  


2019-02-11 17:33:02 UTC  

@Bravos are you christian?

2019-02-11 17:33:33 UTC  

I am a theist

2019-02-11 17:33:36 UTC  

what's your beliefs when it comes to sex before marriage and those sorts of things

2019-02-11 17:34:00 UTC  

Women's chastity needs to be preserved

2019-02-11 17:34:37 UTC  

The family is the priority, not an individual's right to be a degenerate.

2019-02-11 17:35:59 UTC  

why is chastity important?

2019-02-11 17:36:45 UTC  

what has marriage to do with sex being less degenerate?

2019-02-11 17:38:04 UTC  

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

2019-02-11 17:41:04 UTC  

Chastity is important moreso today than ever before

2019-02-11 17:42:01 UTC  

because women cannot pairbond as effectively after having multiple sexual partners

2019-02-11 17:42:39 UTC  

Sexual liberation of women gives women power over men, and can select men with their values

2019-02-11 17:43:11 UTC  

basically I have slippery slope arguments

2019-02-11 17:43:15 UTC  

You might talk about the current stiuation but it's not relevant for the concept of national socialism

2019-02-11 17:43:33 UTC  

this would not apply in national socialist state

2019-02-11 17:44:48 UTC  

In that environment social pressure would keep people from being promiscuous

2019-02-11 17:44:51 UTC  

I don't fully disagree with you, but I don't think this as black or white honestly

2019-02-11 17:44:57 UTC  

at least openly

2019-02-11 17:45:51 UTC  

having several sexual partners isn't bad per say

2019-02-11 17:46:00 UTC  

that's some christian thought

2019-02-11 17:46:36 UTC  

I'm not Christian but, as long as women are controlled it shouldn't be a problem

2019-02-11 17:46:43 UTC  

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

2019-02-11 17:47:05 UTC  

So what about single mothers?

2019-02-11 17:47:24 UTC  

Single mothers . . .

2019-02-11 17:47:41 UTC  

They chose a bad man or they drove a good man out

2019-02-11 17:48:02 UTC  

assuming he didn't die

2019-02-11 17:48:31 UTC  

These unfortunates I would use as a warning to society

2019-02-11 17:48:54 UTC  

They would have to rely upon charity

2019-02-11 17:48:57 UTC  

It's acceptable in national socialism, it's not morally wrong

2019-02-11 17:49:38 UTC  

If I had to choose, even the weak among my people would have to be discouraged

2019-02-11 17:50:02 UTC  

I would not encourage the behavior that results in single mothers by rewarding those that had a part in it

2019-02-11 17:51:10 UTC  

Even White people are capable of degeneracy, I believe in eugenics whole heartedly

2019-02-11 17:51:11 UTC  

*"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