The cited boys' motto is probably a translation of 'Treu lebend, Tod-trotzend kämpfen, lachend sterben'. This was a motto Goebbels apparently had put on the banner of Storm 33, i.e. one that dates from the earlier days of the Nazis. I'm skeptical that it was either an official motto of the Hitler Youth (if so, you'd find more references) or that it would have been popular after about 1940, when 'die laughing' would have ceased to sound like such a romantic goal.
I can't find any reference for the girl's motto, though it sounds accurate enough. In both cases these would definitely be *a* motto and not *the* motto…

Hitlerjugend (Boys): “Treu leben, todtrotzend kämpfen, lachend sterben”

http://books.google.de/books?id=H7YpyO7mj04C&pg…

Bund Deutscher Mädel (Girls): “Sei wahr, sei klar, sei deutsch”

http://78.46.67.42/showthread.php?t=46404 (Not the most reliable source and there are only seven google hits for this)

I apologize if I misread you.

There is simply no way to hold that position without also holding that individuals exist to serve the community….In short, the existence of social programs has no bearing on whether or not an individual has some sort of duty to reproduce to serve the collective.

I disagree. I would say that if you claim that we must tax individuals in order to support other people in their old age, then there is simply no way of holding that position without holding that individuals exist to serve the community. I don't see a fundamental difference behind the principles upholding social insurance and the principles upholding this sort of policy.

Frankly, to me the arguments against the pro-natalist policies end up sounding like arguments that paying military members would “turn them into mercenaries.” You decided that individuals' reproduction would serve the community when you structured and supported Social Security. Refusing to consider the question of fair compensation doesn't change that theft.

I'm saying that :

1) It's an empirically supported fact that social insurance schemes like Social Security decrease the number of children that people have in a lifetime. Indeed, I definitely see how people could view this as a virtue; it does so by making people less dependent on their own children supporting them in old age. I know from Will's writings that he views independence from one's family as an important part of a liberal individualism. (And certainly there is oppression in dependence on one's family, as in older systems.) However, in previous conservations and comments, Will has seen fit to dismiss all these studies.

2) Thanks to social insurance schemes, people who have children subsidize those who do not. One can argue about the whether the subsidy in the one direction outweighs the pro-natalist subsidies in the other direction. But it's absurd to me to pretend that pro-natalist subsidies and policies proceed from the assumption that an individual has a duty to reproduce to serve the collective, but that social insurance policies that tax the reproducing individual to serve the collective don't proceed from that assumption.

Why pretend that the two cases are so different? In Will's case, I believe it's because he views the subsidy that enables a childless lifestyle and independence from family as a positive liberty, but sees no corresponding liberty when it comes to compensating mothers or allowing them to have children with fewer sacrifices.

In short, the existence of social programs has no bearing on whether or not an individual has some sort of duty to reproduce to serve the collective. Full stop.

I'll only grant that if you grant that pro-natalist policies have no bearing on that. Some people, especially in a policy position, may be motivated by that. But other people simply want to have children, feel that they can't afford it, and want to be compensated so that they can. Perhaps not a noble motive, but I hardly see how it's so different from single, childless people wanting the state to support them in their old age because they won't have children to do so.

I suspect you believe that pro-birth bribes are bad for other reasons. In general, you probably shouldn't bribe someone for doing X unless doing X has positive externalities.

Having babies might have positive externalities, or it might not. But that should be a major part if not the major part of any discussion. The retrograde morality of nativists is an important point, but it does not by itself invalidate a nativist's preferred policy.

I'm curious as to what this would have been in German, though. I can't seem to find a poster or anything with a motto that looks similar to this one. Obviously google images is a pretty limited resource in this regard, but that's all I have.

Text-wise, “seid Deutsch”, “bleibt Deutsch” “seid ihr Deutsch,” or “seid Deutscherinnen” yield nothing. But reverse translation is hard.

Yep, a little suspicion might not hurt you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cZG-9PI_LNcC&p…

Mary Douglas settled the question on purity long ago, but then, how many ideologues, Left, Right, or feminist, read Mary Douglas?