Anonymous 01/20/2018 (Sat) 17:30:02 Id: 42e248 No.63231 del
(26.90 KB 398x287 2.jpg)
(24.44 KB 398x252 13.jpg)
(95.41 KB 466x338 20.jpg)
(63.63 KB 564x690 9220794039420253.jpg)
It really depends on the type of sexualization and even if it is sexual. It was sexual to a point to push for Lebensborn (the Nuremberg trial lies about kidnapping is not what that was) which was state care for pregnant women plus pushing the noble agenda for an increase of Aryan births; and the Freikörperkultur nudist movement wasn't considered sexual at all. Families were and still are involved. FKK continues to this day. The problem is jewish hegemony and their worldwide control of the media hypersexualizing everything. Making sexual that which is not and doesn't have to be. If you were a nudist raised by nudists for instance, you wouldn't consider exposed parts sexual.
See the history of this club here. It's amusing, sad really, that the moron who wrote the history claims they had to struggle through Nationalsozialismus and the Gestapo, yet from the 1970s on they were no longer a nudist club. h ttp://

When I say I want to post glorious Aryan tits, that is clearly sexual. There is nothing wrong with a white man viewing a white woman as a sexual being or vice versa because that leads to white children. It is when shitskins desire them that it becomes an issue of degeneracy. Jewish interests in pornography take that a step further torwards promoting miscegenation, just as they did in the degenerate Weimar Republic. The pathetic feminist movement (again, kike origins) insists sexualization of women is similar to viewing them as pieces of meat. Bullshit. Sexuality is intimacy, connection. These images were considered natural and not sexual. They're all legal