Tag Archives: Politics

Immigration and Political Instability: Examining the Consequences of Rapid Demographic Change

Immigration has become a highly contentious issue in many parts of the world, with debates raging over the economic, social, and political impact of new arrivals. One area of concern that has received increasing attention in recent years is the link between immigration and political instability. As the demographic makeup of countries changes rapidly, some worry that this could lead to rising tensions, social unrest, and even threats to democracy. In this article, we’ll explore what the research says about this link and what factors might be driving it.

To start, it’s worth noting that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of how immigration affects political stability. The relationship between the two is complex and can vary depending on a variety of factors, including the level of immigration, the characteristics of the immigrant population, and the broader political and economic context in which immigration occurs. Nonetheless, there are some general patterns and trends that have emerged from the research.

One key factor that seems to be linked to the potential for political instability is the speed and scale of immigration. When large numbers of immigrants arrive in a short period of time, this can create a sense of upheaval and dislocation in the host society. People may feel that their way of life is under threat, and that the newcomers are not integrating or assimilating quickly enough. This can lead to resentment and even hostility towards immigrants, which can in turn fuel political movements and parties that seek to limit or stop immigration altogether.

Another important factor is the demographic makeup of the immigrant population. In some cases, immigrants may be highly educated, skilled, and able to contribute to the host society in meaningful ways. They may integrate quickly and form positive relationships with their neighbors. However, in other cases, immigrants may be less educated, less skilled, and face significant barriers to integration. This can lead to a range of social problems, from high levels of unemployment and poverty to the formation of ethnic enclaves that are isolated from the broader society. When these problems are left unaddressed, they can contribute to political instability.

The broader political and economic context also plays a significant role in shaping the link between immigration and political stability. For example, when the economy is strong and people feel secure in their jobs and financial prospects, they may be more open to immigration and less likely to see it as a threat. Conversely, when the economy is weak and people are struggling to make ends meet, they may be more likely to blame immigrants for their problems and seek to restrict immigration as a way of protecting their own interests.

There are also cultural and ideological factors that can contribute to the link between immigration and political instability. For example, in countries where nationalism and a sense of cultural identity are strong, immigrants may be seen as a threat to these values. This can lead to the rise of populist political movements that seek to defend the nation against perceived threats from outsiders. Similarly, in countries where democracy is weak or fragile, the arrival of large numbers of immigrants may be seen as a challenge to political stability and social cohesion.

So, what can we conclude from all of this? While there is no simple answer to the question of how immigration affects political stability, it’s clear that there are a range of factors that can influence this relationship. Policymakers and researchers need to take a nuanced and evidence-based approach to understanding the link between immigration and political instability, taking into account the specific context in which immigration is occurring. By doing so, we can develop policies and strategies that promote social cohesion, address the root causes of political instability, and help newcomers integrate more effectively into their new communities.

Immigration and Identity Politics: How Rapid Demographic Change Shapes Political Discourse

Immigration has long been a contentious issue, with concerns ranging from economic impacts to national security risks. However, one of the most significant and far-reaching consequences of immigration is the effect it has on identity politics, particularly in contexts where demographic changes are occurring rapidly. In this article, we will explore how immigration shapes political discourse through its impact on identity, and the ways in which this can lead to political instability and conflict.

Identity politics refers to political movements or ideologies that are based on shared characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. These identities can be either real or perceived, and can be shaped by a variety of factors including historical, cultural, and economic contexts. Immigration can have a significant impact on identity politics, particularly when demographic changes are happening rapidly. This is because immigration can lead to a perceived threat to the dominant cultural or ethnic group, which can then fuel political polarization and conflict.

One of the key ways that immigration affects identity politics is through the creation of competing cultural or ethnic identities. When large numbers of immigrants arrive in a country, they often bring with them their own cultural practices and traditions. This can lead to tensions with the host society, particularly if those practices clash with the dominant culture or if there is a perception that immigrants are not assimilating quickly enough. In response, some members of the dominant group may assert their own cultural identity more strongly, leading to a sense of “us versus them” and an increased polarization of political discourse.

Another way that immigration can affect identity politics is by creating a sense of threat or fear among the dominant group. This can be exacerbated by media coverage of immigration, which often focuses on negative stories such as crime or unemployment. When people feel threatened, they may be more likely to support politicians or policies that promise to protect their interests, even if those policies are divisive or discriminatory.

Immigration can also lead to a sense of political disenfranchisement among members of the dominant group. If they feel that their political power or cultural influence is being eroded by immigration, they may become more likely to support populist or nationalist movements that promise to restore their status. This can further fuel polarization and conflict, as these movements often demonize immigrants and portray them as a threat to the nation.

Finally, immigration can shape political discourse by creating new alliances and coalitions. When immigrant communities become politically active, they may form alliances with other marginalized groups such as racial minorities or LGBTQ+ individuals. This can lead to new political coalitions that challenge the existing power structures, which can be seen as a threat by those in the dominant group.

In conclusion, immigration has a significant impact on identity politics, particularly when demographic changes are happening rapidly. By creating competing cultural or ethnic identities, fostering fear or a sense of threat among the dominant group, and shaping political alliances and coalitions, immigration can lead to political instability and conflict. However, it is important to note that the impact of immigration on identity politics is not inevitable, and that there are steps that can be taken to mitigate the negative effects. These may include promoting policies that foster integration and inclusion, reducing economic inequality, and encouraging cross-cultural dialogue and understanding.

The Challenges of Integration: Exploring the Tensions that Arise when Immigrant Communities Collide with Established Societies

Immigration has always been a contentious topic, with proponents and opponents presenting varying arguments to support their positions. While immigration can bring significant benefits to host countries, such as a diverse workforce, cultural exchange, and new ideas, it can also pose challenges, particularly when it comes to integration.

Integration refers to the process of bringing immigrants into the fabric of a society, and it is a crucial factor in ensuring that immigration works for both newcomers and the communities that receive them. However, the process of integration is not always smooth, and tensions can arise when immigrant communities collide with established societies.

One of the primary challenges of integration is cultural differences. Immigrants often come from different cultural backgrounds, with different beliefs, values, and practices. These cultural differences can create misunderstandings and conflicts, particularly if they clash with the norms and values of the host community.

For instance, the practice of wearing the hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women, has been a contentious issue in many Western countries. Some see the hijab as a symbol of female oppression, while others view it as a religious requirement. The tension arising from this issue illustrates how cultural differences can create divisions and tensions between immigrant communities and their host societies.

Another challenge of integration is the language barrier. Immigrants who do not speak the language of the host community may find it difficult to access services, find employment, or engage in civic life. Language barriers can also lead to misunderstandings and create additional obstacles to integration.

The challenge of language is particularly acute for refugees and asylum seekers who arrive in their host countries with limited language skills. Without language skills, refugees and asylum seekers may struggle to navigate complex systems, such as healthcare or legal services, making it harder for them to access the support they need.

Social exclusion is another challenge that immigrants often face during the integration process. Immigrants may feel excluded from the host society due to discrimination, prejudice, or lack of opportunities. This social exclusion can create a sense of isolation and marginalization, leading to mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression.

Moreover, social exclusion can also create a vicious cycle that further impedes integration. When immigrants feel excluded, they may become less willing to engage with the host community, and as a result, the host community may perceive them as unwelcoming and unwilling to integrate.

In conclusion, integration is a complex process that requires effort and commitment from both immigrants and their host societies. Cultural differences, language barriers, and social exclusion are some of the main challenges that arise during the integration process. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that involves providing language and cultural orientation courses, promoting intercultural dialogue, and combating discrimination and prejudice. By working together, immigrant communities and their host societies can create more inclusive and welcoming societies that benefit everyone.

The Rise of Populism: Examining the Connection between Immigration, Nationalism, and the Erosion of Democracy

Populism has become an increasingly popular political movement around the world in recent years. Its rise has been linked to a number of factors, including economic inequality, the decline of traditional political parties, and the erosion of trust in democratic institutions. However, one of the most significant drivers of populism is undoubtedly immigration.

Immigration has long been a contentious issue in politics, with many arguing that it threatens national identity and erodes social cohesion. Populist politicians have capitalized on these fears, often stoking anti-immigrant sentiment in order to mobilize their base. By framing immigration as a threat to national security and cultural values, they have been able to tap into a deep well of resentment and anxiety among voters.

This strategy has been particularly effective in Europe, where the refugee crisis has created a sense of unease and insecurity among many citizens. The influx of migrants from war-torn countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to a rise in nationalist movements, with parties like the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the National Front in France, and the Freedom Party in Austria all gaining ground in recent years. These parties have often been accused of promoting xenophobic and racist policies, and have been criticized for their divisive rhetoric.

The link between immigration and populism is not limited to Europe, however. In the United States, Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was built on a platform of anti-immigrant rhetoric. He famously referred to Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and “criminals”, and called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. While Trump’s policies were often met with fierce opposition, they also resonated with many voters who felt that their concerns about immigration had been ignored by the political establishment.

One of the reasons why immigration has become such a potent issue for populist politicians is that it taps into broader concerns about national identity and cultural values. As societies become more diverse, there is often a sense of anxiety and unease among some citizens who feel that their way of life is under threat. Populist politicians exploit these fears by framing immigration as a threat to national unity, and by positioning themselves as defenders of traditional values.

This dynamic is not unique to the present day, however. Throughout history, immigration has often been a source of political tension and conflict. In the early 20th century, for example, the influx of Irish and Italian immigrants to the United States led to a rise in nativist sentiment, with many Americans fearing that these new arrivals posed a threat to the country’s Anglo-Saxon identity. Similar dynamics have played out in other countries as well, with immigrants often serving as a scapegoat for broader social and economic problems.

Despite the many challenges associated with immigration, it is important to recognize that it also brings many benefits. Immigrants have long been an engine of economic growth, and they contribute to the cultural diversity and vibrancy of societies. Moreover, many immigrants are fleeing persecution or conflict in their home countries, and it is our moral duty to provide them with refuge and support.

Nonetheless, the connection between immigration and populism is a real and pressing issue, and it is one that requires careful consideration and analysis. While we must acknowledge the legitimate concerns that many citizens have about immigration, we must also push back against the xenophobic and divisive rhetoric of populist politicians. Ultimately, the challenge of managing immigration in a way that promotes social harmony and political stability is one of the defining issues of our time, and it will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders to address.

The Global Impact of Immigration: How Changes in One Country’s Demographics Can Trigger Political Instability Elsewhere.

Immigration has always been a controversial topic around the world. While some view it as a way to promote cultural exchange and economic growth, others see it as a threat to national security and social cohesion. Regardless of one’s perspective, there is no denying that changes in a country’s demographics can have far-reaching effects beyond its borders. In this article, we will explore how immigration can trigger political instability in other countries.

One of the most direct ways in which immigration can impact other countries is through remittances. According to the World Bank, remittances – money sent by immigrants back to their home countries – are a significant source of income for many developing nations. In 2020, remittance flows to low- and middle-income countries reached $540 billion, a figure that is expected to increase in the coming years. These inflows can have both positive and negative effects on the recipient countries. On the one hand, they can help to reduce poverty and promote economic growth. On the other hand, they can create a dependence on foreign funds and distort local markets.

In addition to remittances, immigration can also impact other countries through the spread of political ideologies. This is especially true in cases where immigrants come from countries with different political systems or values. For example, the arrival of large numbers of immigrants from authoritarian regimes can pose a challenge to democratic societies, as these individuals may not share the same commitment to democratic principles. Similarly, the arrival of large numbers of immigrants from countries with conservative social values can trigger debates over issues such as women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and freedom of expression.

Immigration can also impact other countries indirectly, by changing the balance of power in international relations. This is particularly relevant in the case of economic immigration, where skilled workers may move to countries where they can earn higher wages or access better job opportunities. If enough skilled workers leave a particular country, it may struggle to compete in the global economy. This can lead to a loss of influence and power, which can in turn trigger political instability as the country’s leaders seek to regain their standing on the world stage.

Finally, immigration can impact other countries through its effect on global security. This is especially true in cases where immigration is driven by conflict or instability in the immigrants’ home countries. When large numbers of people are displaced due to war or persecution, they may seek refuge in neighboring countries. This can create a burden on these countries, as they struggle to provide basic services and support to the new arrivals. In some cases, this burden can spill over into other countries, as the displaced individuals attempt to move further afield in search of safety and security.

In conclusion, the impact of immigration on political stability extends far beyond the borders of the countries that receive immigrants. From remittances to political ideologies, economic competition to global security, the effects of immigration are complex and multifaceted. While it is impossible to predict exactly how changes in one country’s demographics will impact other countries, it is clear that immigration is a global phenomenon that requires a coordinated, nuanced response from policymakers around the world. By working together to address the challenges and opportunities presented by immigration, we can help to create a more stable, prosperous, and interconnected world.


When Good Cops Go Bad: The Slippery Slope of Police Corruption

Police corruption is a pervasive and persistent problem that has plagued law enforcement agencies around the world for decades. Although most police officers are committed to upholding the law and serving their communities with integrity, a small percentage of officers succumb to the temptation of abusing their power and authority for personal gain. When this happens, the consequences can be devastating, eroding public trust and undermining the legitimacy of law enforcement as a whole.

One of the most insidious aspects of police corruption is that it often begins with small, seemingly harmless transgressions that escalate over time. For example, an officer might accept a free meal from a local restaurant in exchange for turning a blind eye to minor violations, such as parking infractions. This might not seem like a big deal at first, but it can quickly snowball into more serious forms of corruption, such as accepting bribes or protecting criminal enterprises.

The slippery slope of police corruption is a well-documented phenomenon that has been studied by criminologists for decades. According to the “broken windows” theory of policing, even minor acts of misconduct, such as ignoring traffic violations or failing to report misconduct by other officers, can create an environment in which more serious forms of corruption are more likely to occur. This is because officers who engage in minor forms of misconduct are more likely to rationalize and justify their behavior, making it easier for them to engage in more serious forms of misconduct in the future.

Moreover, the nature of police work itself can contribute to the slippery slope of corruption. Police officers are often exposed to high levels of stress, danger, and trauma, which can take a toll on their mental health and well-being. In some cases, officers may turn to corruption as a way to cope with the stress and trauma of their jobs. For example, an officer might use drugs or alcohol to numb the pain of witnessing violent crimes or to help them stay alert during long shifts. This can lead to addiction, which in turn can lead to more serious forms of corruption, such as stealing drugs from evidence lockers or falsifying reports to cover up their addiction.

It’s also worth noting that police corruption can be influenced by factors outside of law enforcement. For example, political pressure, organized crime, and systemic corruption within government institutions can create an environment in which police officers are more likely to engage in corrupt behavior. When officers see their superiors engaging in corrupt behavior, they may feel pressure to do the same in order to protect their jobs or advance their careers.

So what can be done to prevent police corruption and address the slippery slope of misconduct? There are several strategies that have been shown to be effective, including:

  1. Creating a culture of integrity within law enforcement agencies, in which officers are encouraged to report misconduct and are held accountable for their actions.
  2. Providing officers with regular training and support to help them cope with the stresses and trauma of their jobs.
  3. Implementing robust systems of oversight and accountability, including internal affairs units and independent civilian review boards.
  4. Encouraging community involvement and oversight, such as citizen review boards and community policing programs.

Ultimately, addressing police corruption and the slippery slope of misconduct requires a comprehensive and sustained effort from all stakeholders involved in law enforcement, including officers, administrators, policymakers, and the public. By working together to create a culture of integrity and accountability, we can ensure that law enforcement agencies are serving their communities with the utmost professionalism and respect, and that officers who engage in corrupt behavior are held accountable for their actions.

The WEF’s Great Reset – Euphemism for a WWIII Scenario?

By Peter Koenig (via Global Research)

Let’s make no mistake, we are already in WWIII. A more noble term is “The Great Reset” – the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) eloquent description of a devastated worldwide economy, countless bankruptcies and unemployment, abject misery, famine, death by starvation, disease and suicide. Hundreds of millions of people have already been affected by this “collateral” damage of the “covid-19” fear-propaganda bio-war, with a death-toll maybe already in the tens of millions, but which in reality cannot even be assessed at this time.

And this only one year into this criminal madness, a diabolical elite of multi-multi billionaires has pushed upon us, We the People. We are only in the first year of the war which by the Reset’s plan is to last the entire decade 2020-2030. The agenda is supposed to be completed by 2030 – it’s also called UN Agenda 2030.

See this.

The WEF is, in fact, nothing more than an NGO, registered in a lush suburb of Geneva, Switzerland. Its members are, however, a collection of dirty-rich people: High-ranking politicians, heads of corporations, banking gnomes, artists and Hollywood personalities – none of them are people’s elected officials with a mandate to rule the world.

Yet, they are effectively ruling the world, by coopting, coercing, or threatening the entire UN system and its 193 member countries into their obedience. Because they think they have all the money in the world, and they can. Mind you, money acquired in a fraudulent system designed by them. – But more importantly, because We, the People, let them.

The Great Reset has three major goals, all of equal importance

(i) massive depopulation,

(ii) shifting all assets from the bottom and the middle to the top; following the motto for the masses, at the end “You will own nothing and be happy”. That is Klaus Schwab’s conclusion for the completion of The Great Reset; and

(iii) a complete digitized control over everything – money, mind, personal records and behaviors – a combination of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, and George Orwell’s “1984”. See this.

As we can see, the WEF is involved at every level in the Plandemic and its consequences, especially the consequences that favor the Great Reset. As Klaus Schwab in the Great Reset so revealingly says, the pandemic opens a “small window of opportunity” during which these consequences (meaning the reshaping of the world) have to be realized. Everything has to work like clockwork.

So far, it seems to be on track. Though, as more people are waking up and scientists consciousness make them leaving their straight-jacketed matrix-jobs, resistance is growing exponentially.

The NGO, trillion-dollar members-powerhouse, WEF, is outranking the world’s peoples designed and implemented UN system by far. Recently the WEF, now in association with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was warning of a cyber-attack on the western monetary system. To emphasize their point, they said, it is “Not a Question of If but When.

According to the Last American Vagabond (LAV), a “report published last year by the WEF-Carnegie Cyber Policy Initiative, calls for the merging of Wall Street banks, their regulators and intelligence agencies as necessary to confront an allegedly imminent cyber-attack that will collapse the existing financial system.”

The LAV article goes on saying

“In 2019, the same year as Event 201 took place (Event 201 – 18 October 2019, in NYC, simulating the current SARS-CoV-2 plandemic and destruction of the world economy), the Endowment launched its Cyber Policy Initiative with the goal of producing an “International Strategy for Cybersecurity and the Global Financial System 2021-2024.” That strategy was released just months ago, in November 2020 and, according to the Endowment, was authored by “leading experts in governments, central banks, industry and the technical community” in order to provide a “longer-term international cybersecurity strategy”, specifically for the financial system.”

The Cyber Policy Initiative emanating from the joint venture’s WEF- Carnegie Endowment report of  November 2020, is contained in a paper titled

International Strategy to Better Protect the Financial System.

It begins by noting that the global financial system, like many other systems, are “going through unprecedented digital transformation, which is being accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic.” It concludes with the warning that:

“Malicious actors are taking advantage of this digital transformation and pose a growing threat to the global financial system, financial stability, and confidence in the integrity of the financial system. Malign actors are using cyber capabilities to steal from, disrupt, or otherwise threaten financial institutions, investors and the public. These actors include not only increasingly daring criminals, but also states and state-sponsored attackers.”

A fully digitized monetary system has been on the WEF’s and IMF’s agenda for years. They cannot wait to implement it. So, if indeed, a cyber-attack on the western monetary system actually will take place, there is no question, who has planned and implemented it.

The drive for total digitization of everything, but foremost the (western) world’s monetary system, is an integral part of The Great Reset. It is supported, of course, by the banking and finance sector, including western central banks. Its implementation is to be accelerated by the covid-fraud, but encounters fierce resistance in many countries, especially in the Global South but also in the western industrialized countries, where intellectual groups realize what this means for the resources and assets worked for and owned by the people – it will be easily ‘expropriated’ so to speak, for example, for disobedience, as the control will be fully with the banks.

And this leads to the conclusion of the nefarious Great Reset – “You will own nothing and be happy”.

Luckily, the East, led by China and Russia, has gradually withdrawn from the western monetary system and are largely independent, monetary-sovereign countries. Therefore the western digitization drive does not apply to the East which is further enhanced by the China-Russia led Shanghai Cooperation Organization – SCO – accounting for about half the world’s population and a third of the world’s economic output – GDP.

See here for the full LAV article.

If Klaus Schwab and the WEF’s “Illuminati” would have their way, by 2030 the grand flock of humans will be transformed into “transhumans” – a kind of semi-robots that responds to AI signals controlled by The Great Reset’s masterminds (sic), which by then will have become the leaders of a tyranny, called the New or One World Order – OWO.

We, the People, would then have become the new AI-directed serfs. Or, as per Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, the “epsilon people”.

Let that not happen.

Let’s unite and resist with all our powers.

We are still 7.8 billion people against a few pathological soulless multi-billionaires.

Edmond Rothschild: “Who runs your government”? “Who is Madame president that is in congress right this second, running it”?

Click the image to link to Facebook Profile

In this Live Feed dated 27th April at approx 2am Baron goes on to question what work elected officials in the US actually do? Which in all fairness, what is it they actually do? He goes on to say:

I’d dearly like to know the answer to this question. Who runs your government? You vote for a president, right? Your president is supposed to be the president of congress, that’s supposed to be the person that runs it. How many times have you seen your president in congress, working? How many times have you seen your president In congress working? You have voted for your president, either Donald trump, or you voted for Joe Biden, to be president of congress. Imma say this one more time. You voted for a president to run congress… how many times have you seen your president in congress performing their jobs? Can you please answer this question? Other than giving a speech, other than giving a speech or the union address. Tell me how many times you have seen your president inside of congress signing laws or settling debates between the democrats and republicans. Can you please tell me how many times you have seen your president? You’re right, you have never seen em, you have never seen your president in congress. In the time that you’ve been alive, you have never seen your president in congress. Nope. Not once. Not one time have you seen em in there other than to give a speech. Not to go over the laws. Not to go over the mandates. Not to go over what’s on the books. Not to go what’s over on the business projects, or what’s going on inside the government. Not going over the books on the union hall, and union hall representatives. Not to go over top the businesses or projects being developed or engineered or constructed with inside of the government, that has to have the contracts in order to do the job necessary. So again, when was the last time you seen your president in congress performing his job? Never. You have never seen your president, of the United States, or for that matter, 90% of the presidents in the world. In. the. world! How many of them presidents have you seen sit down with their congress, and discuss jobs? Discuss projects with their union, with their workforce? Can anybody please answer me this question? You don’t. Not one of them. When something comes up, when it is delegated, to the House of Representatives and to congress. Not as a representative of you, but as a representative of me? So when you click on your little thing real quick, go look at Madame president that sits in congress right now, she’s not their on your behalf, she’s there on the federal reserves behalf, of 4.5 million businesses. Again, you don’t even know how the fuck your country runs. Well I might just come on up there and run it for you, because apparently that’s what the fuck needs to be done. Because you ain’t got no back bone, you ain’t got no balls to kick anybody out of the country. You don’t have any balls to run a fucking country completely or correctly. You don’t know how to perform your job because you don’t know how to be delegated, because you’ve never been delegated, you’ve never had anybody stand up for you, you’ve never had nobody on your side, you’ve never had shit! What have you had? You’ve had contracts. You had bills written out. That’s what you’ve had. You want somebody to speak up for you the people? You want things to be ran as a kingdom for you? You want you to be taken care of as far as your assets, as far as your jobs, as far as your unions, as far as the United States economy… then you ask me. Cause they’re my businesses, that I have 97% of all assets. So if you’d like to know again how this world works, you just come right on over here and I’ll be more than happy to tell you, because apparently nobody knows how to do their…

Baron Edmond De Rothschild – Facebook

In this Live Feed dated 27th April at approx 1am Baron goes on to talk about who is in control in the United States. I’ve done my best to compile a transcript:

“I’m gonna leave a link above, but I know for a fact, when you voted, you voted for who is going to run congress. Who is going to be the president of congress. So you got to vote for president Joe Biden, or you got to vote for president Donald Trump. Who is Madame president that is in congress right this second, running it? That’s making decisions and laws which inside of the government that has no authority inside or on that chair. I like to know this question. Can anybody answer this question? Because you elected an official to perform a job. That is to be the head of congress. Nowwww, again if you voted for Donald trump and supposedly the election got stolen, by Joe Biden, who is Madame president sitting in congress in the position of Joe Biden? Because she’s not an elected official. In other words, your country has still been taken over, and they’re still playing a masquerade game with you, have you not understood this yet people? Your country was taken over, and they’re masquerading a game, but yet you’re not gonna do nothing about it. It’s sad. Sad. Sad. Sad. Sad. See this is why I won’t give the United States any money.

Baron Edmond De Rothschild – Facebook

Dr. Fauci admits COVID vaccine may not be safe

Via Natural News

In an interview on Meet The Press, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has hyped the Coronavirus vaccine since day one, just admitted the COVID vaccines he hyped as a way to save lives may not actually be safe. In a live interview with Chuck Todd, the New York Post reports that the epidemiologist blatantly stated that the country needed to “make sure” the vaccine truly is safe before we give it to children and maybe pregnant women, whom Fauci said are generally “vulnerable” to vaccines.

The New York Post cites him as saying:

The reason is traditionally when you have a situation like a new vaccine, you want to make sure, because children as well as pregnant women, are vulnerable, so, before you put it into the children, you’re going to want to make sure you have a degree of efficacy and safety that is established in an adult population, particularly an adult, normal population.

It is for this reason the new vaccine is going to be tested on “hundreds to a couple of thousands” of children, the New York Post reports him saying.

So, in short, we don’t know if this vaccine is safe, but we’re going to pump it into children anyways.

But what is particularly striking about his statements are when he said we needed to be certain of the vaccine’s safety in a “normal” population. For those of you who are scientifically-minded or work in the field of vaccine testing or statistics, you likely know this means a population that represents the general public.

It is worth knowing that no vaccine ever had a “normal” population in any of the tests. Moderna’s own trials tell us this:

In the safety analysis of the Phase 3 clinical trial, at the time of vaccination, the mean age of the trial population was 52 years (range 18?95); 22,831 (75.2%) of participants were 18 to 64 years of age and 7,520 (24.8%) of participants were 65 years of age and older.

Overall, 52.7% of trial participants were male, and 47.3% were female.

Among trial participants in the safety analysis, 20.5% were Hispanic or Latino, 79.2% were White, 10.2% were African American, 4.6% were Asian, 0.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 2.1% were Other, and 2.1% were Multiracial.

The demographics of the U.S. are ACTUALLY as follows: 50.8% are women, 49.2% are male, 55% are between 18 and 64 years of age, 16.5% are 65 and older, 18.5% are Hispanic or Latino, 76.3% are White, 13.4% are African American, 5.4% are Asian, 1.3% are American Indian or Alaska Native, 2.8% are multiracial.

So, old people were drastically over-represented, and African Americans, Asians, and women were underrepresented. Additionally, Hispanics and Latinos were over-represented, while white people were also over-represented. This is hardly a “normal” population.

However, we don’t even know the preexisting conditions of the sample group and whether that also followed the “normal” population. Moderna doesn’t tell us any of this. But not even factoring in the health of the participants, just based on this one sample size we can already see, it becomes clear this test group doesn’t align with a “normal” population.

According to Dr. Fauci’s recent statements, you only know a vaccine is safe when it hits a “normal” population. So, if we take his statements at face value, there’s no way anyone could have said this vaccine was safe because the trials didn’t consist of a normal population.

Further, in Pfizer’s test, they blatantly state it was only performed on “healthy individuals.” We already know from their own study report on page 41 of the PDF that they did not include people with certain STDs. Additionally, they outline the criteria for being barred from the test on page 145 of the report. But, you know, these “healthy people” somehow are representative of the “normal” public and the FDA approved this vaccine for emergency use despite these shortcomings in the trial.

So yeah, we knew this vaccine was potentially unsafe, and we know it’s also potentially unsafe for children and maybe even pregnant women, but the government still authorized it on the general public and now they’re trying to authorize it on children. But it doesn’t even end there. . .

Dr. Fauci also stated in a White House briefing, according to the New York Post:

If you can show that it’s safe and that in fact it induces the kind of response that is reflective of the protection — mainly the correlate of immunity — what you can do is bridge that to the efficacy data that you got from the 30,000[-person] trial with Moderna and the 44,000[-person] trial that we did with Pfizer.

“If you can show that it’s safe.” I thought is was safe, Dr. Fauci. I thought the vaccine was safe and effective and that anyone who disagreed was a “conspiracy theorist.” The fact of the matter is, you probably don’t know if it’s safe for children, just like you probably didn’t know if it was safe for adults. That’s likely why the FDA never actually approved the vaccine but only approve its emergency use and why you said we need to test it on a “normal” population to see if it’s safe or not.

Read more at: TheWashingtonGazette.com and Vaccines.news.