The Childless Western Leader Trend

A curious phenomenon has been noticed by those of us on the right. It is the childless Western leader trend. Biden is a figurehead, but Kamala, who takes the calls with foreign leaders, fits the barren mold. It is actually amazing to see it listed out but should come as no surprise. This is the physical symbol of the elite of the EU and American Left. When mapped out, the battle lines would require leaders that resemble the personal forms of the two sides. This also visually hints at why the Western elite will never pause immigration.

Each terror attack, each article on Latin American caravans and each border surge comes with more frustration at the elite doing nothing. This is not the case. This inaction combined with enabling the replacement of natives is what they want. We all know this. This is what the current regime wants and is old news. They want a mass of peoples who will have peasant values, enjoy the higher material standards of living compared to their third world homelands, and never become a rising elite to challenge these current elites. We all know the game, and we all worry about decay yet our elite don’t.

Breaking it down further, the battle is truly the childless, leftwing Europeans and Americans with their non-European allies fighting the rightwing Europeans (or European-Americans) to control the economics, natural resources and areas. As these left wing whites are not procreating, they are really fighting their genetic cousins to kill them off and hand over control to alien cultures. That is it. Childless whites allying with non-whites to kill off procreating whites so that the non-whites control America and Europe.

It makes perfect sense that all of these Western leaders would be childless. It is the perfect symbol. It is as close to suicide as they can perform because they are cowards. Beyond that, this is also the system selecting for the most dedicated to the system’s goals. What greater dedication can one make to destroying native European and American cultures than to not have children in one’s personal life?

These leaders are not making the decision to go childless now. They made the decision decades ago, when it still was a bit different. Maybe not in Germany where the TFR has been below Japan’s since the mid ’80s. This is a differentiator for the individuals sliding up the greased pole of politics when roughly any polished speaker can do their job. What type of marker does one need? “I’m dedicated, look how many times I worked for the party, hell I even sacrificed a family to fight for the party!”

It is not just about the system but a reflection of the culture themselves. Let us all be honest about the Clintons. Left to their own devices without the need to have a kid to run for office, they’d have both been single and childless forever. Obama might have been gay or found a white or mixed woman to marry. They felt the need to marry correctly and have kids because the electorate expected it from them. There is a natural revulsion or suspicion by many to childless men or women seeking power in America, so we still require our politicians to do so. Progressive politicians no longer suffer that same burden. Their population now has enough of a critical mass that will not procreate or carry on, therefore politicians need not worry.

This hints at the lack of concern. These leaders have no shared concern for what may come from importing the third world. Why should they worry? They’ll be dead in twenty to thirty years and leave behind no one to suffer in case the grand replacement project yields an apocalyptic warzone in their homelands. The decadence and hedonism of today is the focus. The individual has priority, and individually, they will be cut down.

7 Comments Add yours

  1. Jeff says:

    This is by far one of the dumbest things that I’ve ever read. Usually there is some thought-provoking material in the content that gets posted here but this article is so stupid that it negates anything of value that I’ve previously gotten out of this site.

    Henry talks about childless western leaders and gives one example. How many other childless heads of state can he name aside from Harris and Merkel? He also proclaims that the goal of the ruling elite is the eradication of whites, a class of people intelligent enough to challenge their authority. If that’s the case, then why cite Harris as an example at all? Did I miss the memo? Is she suddenly white?

    He provides more examples of political figures with children than those without children. The Clintons and Obamas had children because it was “expected of them.” Are you kidding me? At which point was Obama hand-picked to become a future leader and subsequently pressured into marrying and having children with Michelle? Another non-white politician by the way. Why was Obama forced to have children while Kamala apparently faced no such pressure?

    Moreover, what’s the end game of the political elite if they won’t be around to reap the benefits of an easily subjugated population of predominantly brown people? This argument would make a little more sense if they actually were having children so as to secure a more privileged future for them. The political elite benefits from unchecked mass immigration because it drives down labor costs. Corporations must also continue growing, which is fueled by more people buying more garbage. Stagnant population growth means stagnating profits.

    It’s hard to believe that this site has any actual editors when absolutely stupid garbage like this gets posted.

    Like

    1. Tony Chachere says:

      HD didn’t mention a bunch of examples, but many more examples exist; Theresa May of Great Britain, Emanuel Macron of France, Shinzo Abe of Japan, that’s enough for a pattern, you could have just Binged it! I

      think it stands to reason that our current heads of state aren’t the world’s true power elite, but rather caretakers who are chosen for their combination of pliable and telegenic qualities. There exist families who’ve been “on top” for thousands of years. People like that think generationally, by definition, and if their servants don’t have kids of their own to bother with, so much the better, lest their kids mistake their parents apparent power for genuine power and try to change things (RFK Jr., perhaps).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. m. says:

        Why does Obama need marriage, why did Bill Clinton need marriage? Because he failed to mention that men seeking power still need approval from a woman, while woman face no such roadblock. A single man is dangerous, because he hasn’t submitted.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. muunyayo says:

    Reblogged this on Muunyayo.

    Like

  3. miforest says:

    Jeff, chill man,Don’t go MIGTOW on us. Five of the G7 leaders are childless . https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/07/29/in-defence-of-the-childless and the underling of bureaucratic class who populate the permanent government are probably more so. Why do you think Eunics were so common in ancient rulers courts? because they had no family to take care of them if the leader fell from power . they were ideal servants. and so it is today . with the twist that today it’s self imposed . have you noticed that chelsea clinton looks more like webster Hubbell , than she does bill?
    the book primary colors details their early relationship. it will also give a little insight as to here closeness to Huma .

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply to miforest Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s