commentary: Demography Is Destiny

Declining Populations Indicate Nations in Decline

Given 01-Nov-08; 15 minutes

Description: (hide)

John Ritenbaugh reiterates that demography is destiny. Population trends become reliable trends of future national consequences. Population declines in Russia have lead President Vladimir Putin to propose stipends to couples for having children. Japan's population has declined so drastically that 50% of the productive force will be put out of commission by reason of age. Vance Packard has suggested that capitalism cannot succeed without an increasing population and a constant stimulus to buy more and more. Without a steady base of consumers, capitalism will die. Barack Obama, an avowed advocate of population control (i.e. abortion or murder) and a supporter of homosexuality and gay 'marriage' (a certain pathway to population decline), will usher in economic woes by systematically destroying the population. Abortion is a cancer, eating into the economic base of the nation. We do not have a debt crisis as much as a death crisis.

You might recall that I mentioned in the second of my offering sermonettes at the recent Feast that "demography is destiny." Demography is the study of populations and their trends. Marketing people and governments are those that are most interested in this subject, and otherwise hardly anyone seems to pay any attention whatever to what seems to be to them a useless research activity. However, it is far from useless, as the researchers themselves have shown, because population trends are now understood to be reliable predictors of future social circumstances.

You will recall that I stated in that sermonette that Russia, Japan, Spain and Italy are undergoing very significant birth rate declines. Now, in the case of Russia and Japan, the statistical picture is downright grim. Alarming. Russia is facing demographic disaster. Now, is this just John Ritenbaugh reaching a conclusion? No, Vladimir Putin said this in his state of the nation address in May of 2008—that Russia's most acute national problem is its declining birth rate. The declining birth rate plus a growing mortality rate is causing Russia to lose 700,000 people a year from their population. Today their population stands at 146 million people, but by 2050, at the current rate it will be between 80 and 100 million.

The average age for males dying in Russia has dropped to 59. They are losing their place among the great nations of the world. This has resulted in the government of Russia subsidizing families with an incentive to have children by giving them $55 per month for a first child, $110 a month for the second child. Those figures are American dollars and in Russia that is a pretty significant figure.

Japan's problems are not quite so severe, but even its populations age brackets are shifting enough that by 2050, 50% of its population will not be productively employed because they are too old and they will be on pensions. Who will be there to support the nation's work and productivity?

I also mentioned in that sermonette that the other Israelitish nations of Europe also have declining birth rates of their native populations. In fact, England and Wales have reached all time lows. In England, one in five pregnancies ends with an abortion. In all of these cases, the only solution that that the national leaders state is that they must find a way to change people's attitudes—especially women's attitudes—regarding the importance of families. Also in every case, all of these nations—especially Russia—have very high rates of abortion. Russia at one time had somewhere between 10 and 12 million abortions per year. Compared to America, it has a much larger number—one to two million abortions per year. They are destroying their nation from within through a shortsighted refusal to have babies.

Now, what does all this have to do with America? Well, during the '60s and '70s, an American author named Vance Packard wrote a whole series of books on a variety of trends that were shaping American culture. I read at least three of his books. In one of them he said that in order for capitalism to survive, it must have something to consistently stimulate it. Without it, he said, it very quickly goes into recession and/or depression. Now, marketers know this well and thus he charged that they use a variety of schemes to provide the stimulation. For example, the planned obsolescence of products made by the manufacturer. What this means is that if the manufacturer manufacturers refrigerators, they ensure that the thing only last ten years and then—boom!—it's done.

By doing something like this, they know that down the road they are creating a situation in which people will consume their products by buying them, because now the refrigerator will not work. The same thing occurred with automobiles, where they historically broke down somewhere between, we will say, 60,000-100,000 miles, and the people were motivated then by that stimulation to buy a new automobile. So, the Japanese came along, and their automobiles lasted a great deal longer, and so the sales went in that direction. But you are getting what I mean. That scheme ensured a market for the products existed for a fairly short period of time.

Now, a second way was in advertising products in which the advertising came ever so close to being a lie that proved to be an attractive bait. Another way was manipulation of credit rates by the banking system and constant urgings of people to buy on credit as a stimulation.

Incidentally, just this past week, Japan dropped its national interest rate from .05% to 0.03%. These are less than 1%. At one time it was actually zero, and they raised it because their economy boosted a little bit. And now, it's headed back down again because the economic situation worldwide—they are caught in it. Well, they are doing that in a vain attempt to stimulate consumers into buying. Brethren, it will not work because there are not enough consumers any longer in Japan to support the production of wealth Japan feels it needs to remain a great nation.

Now, back to the United States and the election. The man who appears at this point to be winning is an avowed abortionist. He is a man far more committed than any other candidate in the history of America, almost to the point of implying that abortion is one's civic duty to make the "right" use of this permission to murder.

In the 1997 book "The 35 Trillion Dollar Elephant in the Living Room"—1997 this book hit the market in the United States—author Dennis Howard said,

Aggressive population control [and one of those is abortion] exacts a huge price in future economic growth that can never be recovered. [This man is a demographer.] Indeed it is a loss that reverberates through all future generations. Without an enormous new baby boom lasting another forty to fifty years, that growth is lost forever.

He estimated, in 1997, that by the year 2000 there was a 50% chance of a dramatic economic downturn. By 2010, he said—we are not there yet, but you see what is happening in the country—there is an 80% chance of a violent economic downturn, and by 2020 a 100% chance. All of this was based on declining birth rates. Now, why? He said because abortion is like a cancer that works to destroy the consumer worker base of the nation. Please understand that abortion does not do this all by itself, but it is nonetheless a major part of the fabric of factors working to produce economic downturns, and over the long haul abortion guarantees it will occur.

Mr. Howard said, "We do not have a debt crisis; we have a death crisis." What is this author's solution? He said one of the things that he recommended (back in 1997) is the same being utilized in places like Russia—that something has to be done, post haste, to change people's attitudes more favorably to the importance of family. It makes one wonder, is anybody listening? Is anybody out there examining what is happening in the nations that have pushed abortion so hard, like Russia and like Japan? Are they doing anything in the United States of America to counter that?

Listen to this: Candidate Obama favors full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects your state from forced recognition of same-sex 'marriages' from other states where courts have ordered gay 'marriage'. Candidate Obama—who claims that he has never been a Muslim and that he is a Christian, and yet he denies Christianity's essential doctrines and morality—Barack Obama has associated the name of Jesus Christ with practices expressly condemned in both the Old and the New Testament, like abortion, like homosexuality and lesbianism, gay 'marriage', you name it.

This election in the United States, in this one man's opinion, is the most serious one facing the United States since Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860. If this man is elected and he stands by the principles that he has proclaimed during this campaign, you are going to witness the most radical change in the American scene that you would have never even dreamed could occur 25 or 30 years ago. I've been warning you that we are losing our liberties, and it looks—the way things are right now—that apparently a majority of Americans do not consider those liberties worth very much. They just I want to be taken care off. I mean, that's the bottom line.


The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

Sign up for The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. Join over 145,000 other subscribers.

Leave this field empty
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.