absolutely yes, but they'll still need support

@John Mosby

I'm not really sure. I think social shame would do much of the work as it did in the past

Yeah, that's just it, the program is for state institutions pretty much. You can start some extra governmental fascist version of Mao's Cultural Revolution and cane whores on the street,.

Might work.

We still need to support them. The child is an innocent

Perhaps just penalize both of the parents if they do not, I dunno. Child support as it is now isn't such a bad idea in theory.

@Vice Commander Hunt

I am a Christian before I am a National Socialist. If we throw out morality to "preserve" anything, then it isn't worth it. Christ and the Saints lead my thoughts, not Rockwell (I am not a big fan of Rockwell, anyway, tbh...I much preferred Stoner and the NSRP).

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb60.htm

Have the father pay the state for the cost he put on society by supporting the mother or something, don't give benefits to the mother so she and her family has to support the child

Well National Socialism is my faith and ideology so I look at things through those lenses, what is most beneficial for our race.

If they get married, have neither of those happen, perhaps give support to the new parents

Right outside of Orwells old home.

There's a case to be made that disincentivizing that would be most beneficial to our race by having healthier people growing in it

>Have the father pay the state for the cost he put on society by supporting the mother or something
Uh...I dunno how to put this...we already have it...pretty much

Really tells you something about his books, he was right.

I know. That's why I said the current child support laws aren't bad in theory

@John Mosby is war ever lawful?

@Vice Commander Hunt

Of course...

What does war have to do with it, though?

So your suggestion is incentivizing marriage by making so that you don't have to pay for child support in marriage? How's that working, right now? @Arcturus

@John Mosby It has a fresh flag anyway

@Kombat-Unit don't have to pay for child support plus the woman wouldn't have to support the child herself. If there's no welfare for the mom, she's going to try a lot harder to make it work.

Now there's not as much drive as she'll be supported either way

It's a shame Vlams Blook moderated the way they did

I'd bet the father would try harder too if his kid might literally be starving.

That's libertarian as fuck.

yeah we need to support parents above all else

Natural eugenics, suppose it's libertarian in a way

Meh

ONly good eugenics are eugenics that dont make kids suffer

That's just fucked up

I don't care for starving kids

I'm more interested in protecting the children than punishing the parents

I'd offer that you could just put the kids up for adoption too

Given the choice, there isn't much to say

Plenty of families would want them

Adoption is very detrimental to kids...kids need to be with their parents, at all costs.

@John Mosby How bout removing them from abusive parents?

You should know better than most that money doesn't equal genetics, nigga you dumb. You have poor whites suffering in South Africa and rich kikes and nogs in America, which would you target for eugenics.

Nigga you confused.

Remind me again what the second part of our Party slogan was?