Hitler Youth's supposed "degeneracy"

All of these are cherry picked things that were supposedly said by single people and heard only by few. Show me important recordings or actual policy if you want to convince anyone, Chaim.

Nice (1) and done btw. Judging by how quickly came into the thread it was probably OP or this thread was proposed in an IRC to test shilling tactics. Sage.

check those numbers

Not that I wouldn't the same, but wew

It's kind of hilarious that anyone thinks soviet men were given a choice. Their wives were literally made into whores for the top-ranking kikes. They were essentially incels and couldn't afford drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. because they had to work to the bone just to be allowed to live another day.

You mean like niggers in modern day America? But we hold niggers accountable.
Slavic men are the new protected class, immune from responsibility for their actions?

Update: Michael Kater's CV as of 2012 certainly looks Jewish. Papers and conferences on anti-Semitism, lots of work with Israeli organizations, entire career based on critical study of the Third Reich. Shabbos goy at the very least, more likely a yid.
ccges.apps01.yorku.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/CV.KAT1_.2.121.pdf
The cap from the Michaud book mentions one of the same talking points as the wiki, the claim that BDM camps were often near Labor Service camps. This further supports my bet that this guy's drawing from the same set of sources, though without the book I can't confirm it.

Lebensborn is also mentioned in that screencap, so it's worth going over again why that wasn't as scandalous a thing as it's often claimed to be. Lebensborn was primarily a program for supporting wives of SS members and secondarily a program for caring for white children already conceived out of wedlock. The idea that it was intended to encourage women to have children outside of marriage is simply not supported by the facts (even wiki no longer includes that claim).

Nobody actually answered my question tho. What were the sexual teachings of the Hitler Youth?

listen to quads

There's no documentation of any sexual teachings except postwar kikery so there probably were none

Who knows, but it would make sense to do a lot of procreating before and during war. This is literally the only reason Muslims have so many children. They're all fodder for the next great war.

This. That simply wasn't what the Hitler Youth was for. What are the Boy Scouts' sexual teachings? It's a dumb question.

I don't think it's a dumb question. Boy Scouts taught sexual abstinence for a while and most youth groups at least touch on the subject. The HJ was an anti-christian organization to a degree so I don't know what their stance on the subject would be if they had one

Better question: There's a video I can't find of Goebbels at a party sitting at a table with other party members and one of them says something about a guy in the back having 32 (I think) kids. How did they accomplish that, exactly? How many were raised by the mother(s), did the Hitler Youth groups fulfill the role of fatherhood while the father was busy with party work (and war), and things like that?

Go take your latte-enema, soyboi

commies (and kikes) always accuse their opponents of their own crimes
this slander of hitler youths is no exception
see the "glass of water" theory of free love and absolute promiscuity in soviet russia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Kollontai
awildolivebranch.blogspot.fr/2006/10/sexual-revolution-disaster-in.html

When you think about it Germany would have to promote a policy like this to maintain a positive population growth.

When you have almost all young men (the ones who are having children) going off to fight a war, not all women can have husbands, and if not all women can have husbands to have kids, the population declines.

Germany would have collapsed with a declining population because almost the whole world was against them, so they would need a large population to defend themselves.

With proper social programs to take care of mothers and a culture like that of Nazi Germany, single motherhood wouldn't have been as degenerate as it is now

It's commie kikes projecting as always. A thread died for this.

As with all things: proof or gtfo. Hearsay from a historian doesn't mean anything because they can say whatever they want. The Germans kept incredibly detailed records of everything, if there's nothing available then it either never existed or the allies purposefully destroyed the material, and we all know they wouldn't have destroyed any material that could make the Germans look bad as they were already fabricating stories in order to do just that.

Idk, the whole "children won't have parents, they'll be raised by the community" shit sounds a bit fishy to me. Regardless I wish there were some sources around that either confirmed or denied this shit. Lmao even made that shit sound like a Harem-style situation. Getting to the bottom of this will be interesting imo

That's because you've probably never interacted with a masculine, patriarchal community interested in the survival and well-being of their kin in your life. And you probably can't even watch a nature show about wolves or bears or something and extrapolate. Soon, like-minded people will wish Hitler were still around, because he would take pity on such a person. The next men to rise will not be able to afford to.

Haha oh waow

Are you from America? We are extremely individualistic here which is probably why you feel that way. Capitalism and individualism has been drilled into our heads our whole lives, really the only sense of community we have left are the white suburbs and neighborhoods and even now those communities seem to be deteriorating

Was meant for

They're done man. All thanks to obongo. Trump didn't win in an electoral landslide among the suburbanites that were so strongly formerly democrat by magic or Russian hackers. They were genuinely pissed off at out of touch virtue signaling democrat niggerlovers destroying their way of life but either way it's a doomed proposition. With dems you might get to be seemingly better off economically with your money if you're poor or possibly lower middle class, but sure enough your neighborhood is fucked and your property values plummets more than your gained income, an illegal takes your jobs meant for poor and lower income domestic people, not to mention the new real physical deadly dangers making everything pointless. With the Republicans you're a neocon cuck for zog and the (((1%))) but you get to have some better social policy and keep more of your income through lower taxes, it's a better deal with real gains just barely. Either way you lose. There's a third position but not as if the population is going to be wise soon enough to notice it.

Suggest you read "Bowling Alone" by the way. That and

archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

Halloween was shit this and the year before it because the coons flooded in by obummer's housing goons in his final years. No parents dare send their kids outside anymore here, before it was flood streets of kids trick or treating and constant street parties on holidays like July 4th people with their garages open working and running outside socializing with neighbors. No more. It's over, it's all over. People are white flighting in droves too. Nobody trusts each other anymore, social trust is dead thanks to diversity.

You can't refute ANYTHING with /cocksuckingtrannyBOpol/, OP. Don't even try.

Yeah I'm from America, but I have a large extended family and I view that as the ideal. Tbh the biggest issue I have with it is the "no parents" aspect, since immediate blood ties are really important imo. This may be controversial here, but I think family is always more important than country.

I don't think that's what patriarchy is. A community can't replace family imo

That's not completely true. Europeans and East Asians lived like that for centuries in their specialised villages, the community was family as early death was common among peasants for ages and it may not be truly family although in most cases you'd have tons of family in the village to begin with but it worked. But anyway, you're half right. You need family + sense of community + strong male leaders. That is gone now for the most part.

Of course

Alright this thread stinks to high hell, it smells like a Holla Forums astroturfing thread.

Most of the faggots raiding use discord nowadays.

Really? Because there's a video of some ugly bolshevik pig porking out on "her" collective's rations floating about. Oddly enough there seems to be massive damage control stemming from this video and it is hard to procure, anyone care to help me out?

hahaha that third pic shows typical communism. all meetings and ideals. how can we order people around more? on repeat over and over in their minds. as for the first two, am I missing something here or so what? what do they think that shows? I can easily imagine some salty tard jumping up and down in their own 'CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!' moment, 'now that dastardly Pol won't be able to look down on [the functionally infinite amount of sick shit infesting everything commie]!'

It was posted on leftypol. you'd have better luck finding something useful in a bowerbirds nest, i mean haha look at them go ITT, so pitiful.

the best jew lie i've heard (by a kike weimar germany prof) was that there were roving bands of orphan boys post WW1 who had these elaborate pseudo-homosexual, violent gangs where they would initiate new members by anally raping them, and that most of these boys grew up to join the waffen SS

gotta say, pretty entertaining

The preservation of an entire nation is more important than one family. You are fucking retarded.

Bullshit, at least in Europe, if you lived past 10 years of age the mean age of death was in the 70s just like it is today. Childhood is a time of weakness to infection that is all, also the naturally deformed would die young.

Peasants in the Manorial system generally had individual plots and only worked together on the lords land less than 7 days a year. They they did lend out animals and plows to each other, but farmers in rural America do that today.

Liberal faggots will often bitch about the "nuclear family" and act as if a uncle staying with his brother until he was married to work the land or a grandpa in a chimney corner means that the idea of the nuclear family his horeshit.

The only real example of vast communal living with 30+ individuals in a home would be silkworm farmers in China and Japan. And that is because of the labor intensive nature of the cultivation.

...

That gives away all the information on your views. You can't view your community as kin because Americans live insolated lives where your neighbors are NOT your kin.
I agree family is important but before America and the colonial ages most of the time your neighbors and your community were actually family if you went back far enough.

I generally put more trust in recorded speeches than written word.
This includes even things like "Mein Kampf".

I have never heard a liberal bitch about the nuclear family that way. The argument has always been 'my friend family is much better than my real family, fuck nuclear households' to some extent or another.

That's not exactly true with me though. I live in a relatively less populated area, and most of the people in my area have lived here for a long while. Most of my family lives near me and I've got a strong sense of community.

Anyways that really wasn't my point. I don't think that a community member serving as a paternal figure is any replacement for a real one, even if they're really great.

I have tbh. Lots of commies are for abolishing the family in favor of the community as a family.

What the fuck are you talking about and what does it have to do with the video I'm talking about that many people here have certainly seen?

It's the academics grasping at straws after you provide statistical evidence that white conservative nuclear families provide optimal results in the modern environment.

Then they'll hit you with "y-yeah b-but the nuclear family is a totally modern invention because [bullshit stated above]."

That's when you point out that the grandparents living in separate homes is entirely at matter of our extreme affluence. And that grandpa living a mile from the house of his son in rural America is equivalent to him living a the next house over in a medieval village because automobiles exist. Rural America is essentially living in a middle ages society. Everybody has guns just as all men were required to have arms. The countryside now has all the industry(2.7 times the total output of china in the US) and the owners are essentially the local nobility. And the families all live within 5 minutes of their relatives.

And the rural Americans are the only population in an industrialized nation which I know of that have above replacement birthrates(2.6 to 2.9). Even spics in America only manage 1.8 and shitskins in Europe sink down to 1.5 after the first generation. That's why they need to keep importing tens of millions of them. Modernity is a fucking cancer and only those no reject it are surviving. That's really why they hate us so much, we refuse to drink their poisoned chalice.

I don't really buy this. The nuclear family is kinda shitty by itself. The nuclear family by itself isn't enough to support your average person. People don't interact with their community like they used to, and families are more isolated than ever.

That's because modern families are so broken now. There's no extreme stigmas attached to being single mothers, sexual promiscuity, divorce, and infidelity anymore like it was in the past. Most marriages seem to end in divorce now and far too many in the younger generations know what it's like to be raised by single mothers, which is exactly a prime factor in why they are so fucked up.

That's not the point I'm making either though I'm sure you agree it's a much better situation than no parents.

I'm sure they do argue that but their arguments are always 'friends are better than family because you pick them'.

The nuclear family IS modern though. It's not that you wouldn't have parents though it's just that you would also regularly interact with your extended family and potentially live with them. It makes no sense that older grandparents live by themselves imo (unless they are next door). That is a common situation in modern America.

Also it is true that the nuclear family is better than any shitty non family single parent household crapshoot, but is it better than the multigenerational case? I'm not sure and I've never seen any stats on it, I'd assume that the multigenerational case for many reasons most of all the lack of age gaps which creates a barrier in families.

You'll have to define support, financially in rural America it is absolutely adequate. But it is merely the primary familiar unit not the only one.

Are you implying that a family exists in a vacuum, other then on a colonial frontier where it did and was successful anyway. Kids will see their cousins every few days in rural America. Aunts will babysit 5 or so kids when they aren't working as will retired grandparents. The fact that the household is composed of a two generations of parents and children doesn't mean they don't interact with the extended family.

Kinda, since Americans(whites only obviously) work more hours then they did and more than any other nation even South Korea. But then again rural America was always filled with taciturn Cavaliers and Prussians who didn't care for the communal philosophy of Prussianism. So most leisure time for males is spent hunting with close family members or laboring at home. There are all sorts of gun raffels and social meetings but they aren't that important. And there is the Churches. The real issue as far as I can tell was the left convincing women that they have to work in worthless service jobs and thus devaluing labor in the process to eventually necessitate that. Hence women who would normally spend their leisure time chatting with other women in the area or arranging social events don't do that anymore.

These changes aren't due to some nebulous kike force which magically causes less socialization but real material influences such as increased labor hours or other leisure distractions like the TV. The TV really is the problem for women as it basically is a suppliment for socialization and naturally gets them to "socialize" with a bunch of distant or outright foreign trash who they have no business caring about or even being aware off. Women's newsletters in England were a problem even in the 1800s, that's why there were so many busybody cunts crying about starving niggers in the colonial possessions.

We should openly forbid the publishing of media directed at women outside of highly controlled and censored material for this reason. Women are sheep and are easily directed.

Well given that I and many others spent the daytime hours before attending school with aunts or grandparents what is the functional difference?

What is the difference between grandpa in the chimney corner and grandpa 800 yards up the road? I mean you see him essentially just as much so what difference does it make.

If they are all together in one county or even within the same 10 mile raidus I doubt it could be statistically distinguished. Its not like 50 year old grandparents lived in houses with their kids in the middle ages, they moved in when they got too old to manage their own holdings at which point a younger family would move in with them or they'd move to the more affluent child's household(ie the one large enough to accommodate them). The existence of households with 3 generations was merely a matter of affluence and the necessity of working, and not a permanent fixture. Though most of their life(mean age of marriage varied from 20-27) they either lived and worked with their parents or in their own home with their children. Grandparents would be a fixture in their homes for some number of years but not the majority and would then disappear as they got a household of their own.

I am not disagreeing with you but that is not nuclear family. You have described the multigenerational family.
I think you can agree being surrounded by many different family members is a good thing.
Most nuclear family's don't have that though. They have family 4, 5, 6 hours away that they are disconnected from.
The general nuclear does not account for multiple family members living in the same vicinity.

So basically what I'm saying is I'm confused about what you're arguing because I agree that the multigenerational family is better.

My argument is that the experience of family in Rural America is similar, though not identical, to that of Manorial Peasants in the middle ages. And that the Nuclear/Generational family distinction is so muddled that as a scientist I find it non-descriptive.

What the leftists and kikes are really doing when they attack the "nuclear" family is attacking family life in general with the intent to undermine it. Notice that they never argue that Grandpa should go live in the room his grandson used to inhabit in his elder son's house rather than a nursing home. They'll either argue that we need more state control such as pre-schools(because hurrdurr nuclear family is modern construct so just do what I say goyim), or that you you cannot denigrate their worthless modern horseshit because your system isn't "traditional" either, or they'll try to guilt trip women about having affluence enough that the families can all afford separate houses while niggers in Apefrica huddle together like rats in a warren.

Basically "nuclear family" in the context of a conservative from 1950 meant the type of rural life I was describing while to the dupliticous kike "nuclear family" can mean both a professional living in a shitty city 100 miles from his relatives with just his wife and kids or that more traditional structure. Muddying definitions via their infiltration of academia is one way in which the kikes undermine our entire society.

"YOU DON'T OWN NOTHING GOYIM!"

I can't really take anything kikes wrote about their enemies seriously after what I've learned.
Also don't bother with Holla Forums. They're ineffectual prison-gay trannies who spend their parents' fortunes reading books they don't understand and smoking shitty weed.

TestTest
SAGE

Have no data on the citations and i've watched only the Goebbels webm brought up. If anyone has the time, I'm sure in Hitler's Table Talks there will be sources for sexual teachings of the NSDAP.
But, I have a few suggestions. These articles sound like degeneracy to us, but would they be so bad overall? We know that the youth fuck eachother and are willing to do so in every country and culture, that's nothing new. Especcialy when they are encouraged by the state and such a person as their Fuhrer.
Having specially bred super-people is what we think of the Hollywood depiction of the amoral 3rd Reich, and i"m sure that many artciles on that are false, but what if it were the case? After all, Hitler and Himmler wanted those kind of people and as fascism is applying nature to man, it would be logical. In fact, i see nothing wrong with that, as long as the children are brough up with care and love, not like the MK-Ultra selective programming of children. MKUltra produces slaves, the German Reich produced masters. Ensuring a healthy and evolving society by breeding our best and brightest is not immoral, but is the way of true progress, and i wouldn't be suprised is the 3rd Reich did just that.

Source is some random cunt. The middle one is cut off at what looks like an inconvenient point as it talks about the lebensborn. Drastic times call for drastic measures and in war children are often raised without the father. Its not ideal, but neither is genocide. Shit thread prompted by a shit commie attack. Reminder kikes never defend, they only attack attack attack. So do it back to them, try to avoid ever pausing to stop and defend something the kike has said. They just want you on the defensive so they control the conversation. Take control from them, bombard them with Holla Forums facts.

mothers with over 5 kids were highly respected by the nazi party and enjoyed special priveleges - even single mothers.

What?

Well duh how else would they enough Reichskinder to colonize eastern Europe?

Honestly the Prussian and Natsoc ideal for the average citizen was not a master, it was I guy who does what he is ordered to do correctly and has national interest first at heart. He's not a slave because he still has initiative coerced through fear or gibs but he still isn't a master. He's just an average member of community.

Similarly the opposed American ideal isn't a master or a slave. It is a man who gives zero fucks, his interests are for his family then his nation. But his national interest is far more brutal and dog eat dog. Whereas the Prussian style is more organized.

Prussianism puts faith in the ability of a justly ruled society to select what is desirable. It is based upon the love of of one's people wherein the worthy are guided by a shared ideal.

Americanism puts faith in cruel nature to select for what survives. It is based on the hatred of one's enemies wherein the unworthy are destroyed by amoral and relentless forces outside of human control or even their fellow men.

They both arose around the same time, but can be subverted like any other system but both have decent ideals. They just go about them in completely opposed ways.

Prussianism is like friendly father who wants his son to grow up strong.

Americanism is a man who throws his son in a stream and says "Sink or swim faggot. Make it back to the shore in under 30 seconds and I might feed you tonight."

Neither is right or wrong its a matter of what appeals to the population in question. Trying to impose one upon the other just leads to hostility.

To the left accepting the fact that there are people richer than yourself because they deserve it equals wanting your DNA erased from the gene pool.

Case fucking dismissed.

I don't see anything problematic here. With negative population growth and men going off to war, it is smart to institute 'periodical polygamy' as Rosenberg called it. The main child rearing presence must be from the mother. The father instilling discipline and masculine virtue does not take nearly as much persistent contact. This is another case of 'a good republic is better than a bad monarchy, a good monarchy is better than a bad republic.' The culture matters. Periodical polygamy works in a National Socialist society because no one is fucking hedonistically with the birth control and abortion and welfare safety nets. Those who abused it, would face natural consequences. There was an honourable goal involved here carried out by honourable people.