“The war against fertility and population decline”, and in answering the question on whether demographics or demographical changes explain population decline, we ought to engage what is called the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). In essence, to compare fertility across countries (and time), the so-called Total Fertility Rate is what is used. Roughly speaking, it is the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime. But important to note is that the Total Fertility Rate is independent of the number of women and of their age structure. The figure you are seeing on screen shows the evolution of Total Fertility Rate in several European countries between 2001 and 2023, namely: Austria, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (which is represented in blue). All of these selected countries experienced a similar drop in the Total Fertility Rate in 2022 as the Czech Republic.

So, by the end of 2023, the following two points were clear. First, the drop in natality in the Czech Republic in 2022 could not be explained by demographic factors, because the TFR (as we highlighted earlier on) is definitionally and functionally independent of the number of women and their age structure (which are key demographic factors)! In addition, the data for 2024 shows that the Czech TFR has decreased further, and unique demographic factors in 2022 would likely not suffice to explain the drop in subsequent years.

Second, from the data on the screen, it reports that many other European countries experienced the same dramatic and unexpected decrease in fertility as the Czech Republic that started at the beginning of 2022. But, the ones represented in the graph on screen are not even the only countries. There are additional nations like: The Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Now, on the other hand, there are some countries that do not show a sudden drop in the TFR, but rather a steady decline over a longer period (particularly nations such as Belgium, France, UK, Greece, or Italy). Notable exceptions are Bulgaria, Spain, and Portugal where fertility has increased (albeit from very low numbers). All of these figures can be found at “The Human Fertility Project” database, which has all the referenced numbers and projections we’re discussing.

So, this data pattern that we have just described, which provides fertility decline) is quite amazing and unexpected that even the mainstream media in Europe cannot avoid the problem completely. However, as opposed to a critical and factual discussion of the data, what we often see on the mainstream media is that from time to time, talking heads with many academic titles appear and push the so-called politically correct narratives in an effort to explain away the fertility decline. Like we’ve already established, what they claim to be an explanation is demographic factors. But, like we have established, the TFR is definitionally independent of the number of women and their age structure (which are key demographic factors), and therefore, negates demographics as an explanation.

But, if the mainstream media academic talking heads do not try to pin the population decline on demographics, they will also opt for another politically correct narrative, which claims that the problem resides with Putin and his alleged invasion of Ukraine! But, spoiler alert: the proxy war with Ukraine started in February 2022; however, children not born in 2022 were obviously not conceived in 2021, and so, it therefore also CANNOT be Putin or the proxy war.

So, at this point, clearly, neither demographics of political developments that erupted in 2022 can explain why population decline worsened across various European nations in 2021. Well, as many ponder this question, vaccines keep coming up and the common denominator.

Here’s why vaccines are important to look into in light of the decreasing fertility rates. The Czech journalist whose work prompted our discussion today, well, he (being Tomas Furst), acquired a government database on the number of newborns in each month, broken down by age and vaccination status of the mother. Now, the data contains the number of births per month between January 2021 and December 2023 given by women (aged 18-39) who were vaccinated, in other words those who had received at least one Covid vaccine dose by the date of delivery, and by women who were unvaccinated, meaning they had not received ANY dose of any Covid vaccine by the date of delivery.

Furthermore, the numbers of births per month by women vaccinated by one or more doses during pregnancy were provided. This enabled Tomas Furst and his team to estimate the number of women who were vaccinated before conception. They further used open data on the Czech population structure by age, and open data on Covid vaccination by day, sex, and age. Then, combining these datasets, they were able to estimate the rates of successful conceptions (meaning conceptions that led to births nine months later) by preconception vaccination status of the mother.

First, the dataset revealed that vaccinated women conceived about a third fewer children than would be expected from their share of the population. Unvaccinated women conceived at about the same rate as all women before the pandemic. Importantly, this tells us that a strong association between Covid vaccination status and successful conceptions has been established. Secondly, the dataset revealed that In the second half of 2021, there was a peak in the rate of conceptions of the UNvaccinated (and a corresponding trough in the vaccinated). This points to rather intelligent behaviour of Czech women, who – contrary to the official advice – probably avoided vaccination if they wanted to get pregnant. This concentrated the pregnancies in the unvaccinated group and produced the peak.

Now that the association between Covid-19 vaccination and lower rates of conception has been established, the one important question looms: Is this association causal? In other words, did the Covid-19 vaccines really prevent women from getting pregnant? Well, the mainstream media and their talking heads brush off these findings and say that the difference is easily explained by confounding: more specifically, they state that the vaccinated tend to be older, more educated, city-dwelling, and more climate change aware, woke persons, among other ultra-liberal considerations. But, that all may well be factually accurate, but in early 2022, the TFR of the whole population dropped sharply and has been decreasing ever since.

THEREFORE, something must have happened in the spring of 2021. Had the population of women just spontaneously separated into two groups – one being those who wanted kids and did NOT want the jab, and the other being the city dwellers who did NOT want children and wanted the jab – well, then the fertility rate of the UNvaccinated would indeed be much higher than that of the vaccinated. In that respect, such a selection bias could explain the observed pattern. HOWEVER, had this been true, the TFR of the whole population would have remained constant. But (of course) this is not what happened. Instead, the TFR of the whole population jumped down in January 2022 and has been decreasing ever since in the Czech Republic.

And so, if one wants to argue that a “factor X” is responsible for the drop in fertility, one will have to explain (1) firstly why the factor affected only the vaccinated, and (2) secondly why it started affecting them at about the time of vaccination. And based on the data from Czech journalist Tomas Furst, it appears that Factor X is the covid vaccine. We also recently discussed the ramifications of the Covid vaccine here on ‘The War Room’, including a study (which focused on approximately 1.3 million women), by Manniche at al, which found that COVID-19 vaccinated women had approximately 33% fewer successful pregnancies than unvaccinated women. There is also the finding in the Pfizer Papers amalgamated by Dr Noami Wolf, which show that Pfizer targeted the reproductive function of the human body, they also knew that they were blocking women’s ovaries with lipid nanoparticles, and that the lipid nanoparticles traverse the placenta. Here’s more from Dr Noami Wolf.

VACCINES HAVE A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF BEING USED FOR POPULATION REDUCTION

Here’s why the culpability of vaccines in the war on fertility should not surprise anyone: vaccines have a well documented history of being used for population reduction – especially when we look at the tetanus vaccine. First of all, and as was highlighted by Dr Russell Blaylock, tetanus is probably one of the most ridiculous vaccines ever. Your chances of getting tetanus are about the same as walking outside and getting hit by a meteor. If you get a cut or puncture wound and you put peroxide on it, your chances of getting tetanus are zero because the tetanus organism is anaerobic. It cannot live in oxygen. In addition, Dr Russell Blaylock, highlights that tetanus comes from the bowels of animals. And so, as long as you don’t have a sheep or a cow in your actual house, you’re in any danger. BUT, the same cannot be said for the tetanus vaccine.

The tetanus vaccine has been culpable in the creation of infertility problems. And another consideration is the presence of Thimerosal (or mercury) in not only the tetanus vaccine, but other vaccines – such as the influenza vaccines.

IN ADDITION TO VACCINES, CLIMATE ALARMISM HAS CONTRIBUTED TO POPULATION DECLINE

But despite all we have discussed, vaccines are not the only culprit in the war on fertility and population decline, which then brings us to a phenomenon we have touched on, which is the use of climate change anxiety to destroy the fertility, and population numbers and even the family unit. And well, there is no climate alarmism without climate anxiety. In fact, what you would have also observed in the status quo is that, while the doomsday prophesying of climate extremists has created hardened sceptics on one side who are increasingly suspicious of all public so-called “expertise”, it has however simultaneously infected others with a crippling, pathological fatalism that has come to be referred to as “climate anxiety” – something that was also noted by the environmental researcher Ted Nordhaus. And when you observe the utter ridiculous nature of climate change arguments and protests, you get to appreciate the extent of the harm that the advent of “climate anxiety” has brought.

But, even while there is the obvious cases of obnoxious and lawbreaking behaviour, from climate activists defacing works of art, to interrupting political events or even sporting events, to glueing themselves to buses and holding up traffic on major thoroughfares – the problem with climate anxiety runs much deeper than that. Just consider recent headlines in lamestream media publications: From Vox there was the article titled “What to do when you’re completely overwhelmed by climate anxiety.” From The Guardian they published one titled “Climate anxiety adds to teenagers’ fears.” And the New York Times’s contribution was “How Climate Change is Changing Therapy.” And perhaps most despicable of all, from the BBC, they published an article titled: “Climate anxiety: ‘I don’t want to burden the world with my child.” But, concerning the BBC’s contribution specifically, you would have noticed that the trend of climate anxious people being deterred from starting families that was explored in their article is so wide now that they have even given it a name: being “birth strike”.

THE SILENT EPIDEMIC OF “BIRTH STRIKES”

Let’s directly respond to the contexts of this video, because it genuinely is painful to hear this woman speak. From how she herself narrates her experience, it doesn’t sound like she’s a hero in her own story: instead, she sounds like a victim of indoctrination and climate anxiety. She clearly has had to sacrifice motherhood and building a family – things she genuinely desired and looked forward to, all because she was convinced that climate change is an imminent threat that is creating a shortage of resources and will inevitably lead to wars, and therefore making the world unsafe for her and her child – which is a textbook slippery slope.

Secondly, while many challenges in the world might have relatively simple solutions, they – however – are not mere on-the-surface issues that can be reduced to simple anecdotes. When you look at the shortage of resources (especially food) as an example, you discover that the earth is full of resources more than the billions of people on the earth can consume. You discover that there is an abundance of uncharted lands while people are in need of housing or commercial land. In addition, you also discover that issues like food shortage are manufactured by sinister individuals. Much like how we’ve observed governments like the ones in the US and European countries forcing farmers to sell their farms, while making it expensive and difficult for those who refuse. You also find companies like Monsanto that produce genetically modified seeds that also do not produce after their own kind, affecting the output of farmers. And also because they would have to always purchase these seeds from companies like Monsanto, it makes it relatively more expensive for farmers to reproduce. However, all of these nuances to the issues we see in the world are not highlighted by Blythe Pepino in her video that we just saw.

And so, if the issue is not climate change (because it really is not), we then ought to ask what this silent epidemic of birth strikes is ACTUALLY about. Well simply, it is a population control strategy that is being marketed as a tool of empowerment for women. And so, once again, feminism (which on its own is a festering wound destroying the lives of women, while attacking the family unit) is being used as a conduit for other social ills. But, to observe the evidence of birth strikes as a strategy for population control and reduction, which is being marketed as a tool of empowerment for women, we need to look at South Korea.

 Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso