How Much Time Does the U.S. Have?

**Tyrael** · 21st-June-2008

How Much Time Does the U.S. Have?

Posted By Charles S. LiMandri On June 19, 2008 @ 12:00 am In The Edge | 18 Comments

A friend recently asked: “How long do we have left as a society?” In answer to that question I informed her about an interesting and comprehensive study that a renowned British anthropologist, Joseph Unwin, PhD., presented to the British Psychological Society in 1935. Unwin sought to prove that the traditional monogamous model for marriage was not essential to the maintenance of a healthy society. After studying 86 different cultures, across time and continents –and much to his surprise — he came to the inescapable conclusion that the traditional male-female monogamous model for marriage was indeed the best foundation for a healthy and productive society.

Unwin found that societies that adopted this model typically took about three generations to reach their peak of productivity and progress. After that, frequently, a gradual development of complacency and licentiousness would take place and what he described as an ”outburst of homosexuality” would sometimes occur. When that happened, and the society started to move away from the traditional model of male-female monogamous marriage as its foundation, it would begin to unravel. It would then take another three generations of deterioration from that point for the society to collapse.

It is my opinion that between the end of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction of the South, proceeding through the Industrial Revolution, and continuing up until about the end of World War II in 1945, the U.S. reached its zenith. Then came the U.S. Supreme Court’s Everson decision in 1947 which imposed an unconstitutional “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. This directly contradicted the vision of the founding fathers. Upon his farewell address to the nation, George Washington tried to impress upon his fellow countrymen that it was “Religion and Morality” that served as the foundation for our young nation.

Our thinking about human sexuality was transformed in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s by Alfred Kinsey, using false and fraudulent statistics — including the 10% myth concerning the number of homosexuals in the population. His work was based largely on the deviant sexual practices reported by those in prison. His flawed conclusions were not surprising since 86% of convicted child molesters against males describe themselves as being either homosexual or bisexual. A young college student at the time, Hugh Hefner, was influenced by Kinsey’s work and started what was to become the Playboy empire which in turn helped launch the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold in 1965 (which found a new constitutional “right to privacy” for contraception) was the next big judicial construct. This in turn helped fuel the feminist revolution of the 1970’s since women were no longer “chained to their homes” by babies to raise. But, since contraception does not always work, the U.S. Supreme Court had to find a new application for the constitutional right to privacy, which it did in Roe v. Wade in 1973. This travesty of a judicial decision allowed for abortion on-demand. With the new influx of contraceptive and “liberated” women in the workplace, having more extramarital affairs than ever, it was of course necessary to adopt liberal No-Fault Divorce laws. In this way, the cheating spouses could easily get out of their lifelong marital commitments with little or no legal penalty or social stigma.

This in turn created the situation where there were far more little boys growing up with no strong male role models at home and far more little girls being raised with no father or by step-fathers more likely to sexually abuse them (e.g. Ellen DeGeneres). In either event, we increased the number of male and female homosexuals by enhancing the risk factors for developmental gender confusion and the psycho-social deficits which eventually lead to the same-sex attraction. Hence, the need for yet another constitutional right to privacy to be announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the horrific Lawrence decision in 2003 — this time for homosexual sodomy. Thus, what started with the uncoupling of sexuality and procreation in the Griswold (contraception) case has now reached its unnatural conclusion with the legalization and normalization of homosexual sodomy in the Lawrence case. After all, if sex is only about adult emotional attachments, and not procreation, then why not homosexuality?

Of course, the downward slide of our society has been greatly accelerated by the explosion of pornography on the Internet which has weakened the natural romantic attraction between young people and replaced it with unbridled selfish sexual gratification. This has further lessened the natural resistance and even revulsion to various sexual perversions. Indeed, just this past week we have witnessed the sitting Chief Appellate Justice of the largest federal judicial district in the nation, posting disgusting sexual images on his website (involving people and animals) while presiding over a pornography trial involving bestiality and extreme fetishes. Where does all of this lead us — to same-sex “marriage,” of course. And how much time do we have left by Unwin’s standards — I would say that we are at least at the end of the second generation of deterioration, if not already well into the final third generation before the collapse.

Can we stop this societal suicide — possibly, but not if we can’t stop same-sex “marriage” in California in November 2008, and not without supernatural help. Without the foundation of Religion and Morality that George Washington and the other founding fathers provided for us, there is simply no real hope for the future of this country.

Finally, since it is only in our maleness and femaleness that we are made in the image and likeness of God, the destruction of the concept of gender is perhaps Satan’s greatest accomplishment. Moreover, since the sacramental marriage of a husband and wife is used to image the relationship of Christ and His Church, even the idea of same-sex ”marriage” is a sacrilege. Therefore, separate and apart from the seemingly accurate prognostications of Professor Unwin, I just don’t see how a God of Justice can tolerate such a diabolical mockery of His divinely ordained institution of marriage for very long. Indeed, the same man to whom our Lord entrusted the Keys to the Kingdom warned us that: “…in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts… ” (2 Peter 3:3). In conclusion, I informed my friend that although we have had the privilege of living in the greatest nation in the history of the world, based on the foregoing, we may very well be seeing it in its waning years. May the God of our fathers have mercy on us and our beloved country.

Article printed from Catholic Exchange: http://anonym.to/?http://www.catholicexchange.com

URL to article: http://anonym.to/?http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/19/112901/

America's fate is not sealed. There are always periods of prosperity and so called "middle ages" like a cycle. However it seems to happen quickly for America and western civilization at large.

**RedRooster** · 22nd-June-2008

America's fate is not sealed. There are always periods of prosperity and so called "middle ages" like a cycle. However it seems to happen quickly for America and western civilization at large.

I agree. I would liken today to the "dark ages", the Gothic times of Europe. When the church stifled reason and creativity in their purest forms. The Enlightenment followed... the seed of the founders of America.

The church of this new dark age is now Post-Modernist Deconstuctionism of which Feminism is it's coup d'état. It is actually brilliant, this feminism, like an evil genius is brilliant. Of course this all started earlier with the predecessors to this school of thought... Hegel, Marx, etc.... but the root has been reached and it is now time to hack away, or forever let the dark tree flourish.

I think these cycle's seem to be happening quickly now, because they probably are. We have learned something from history, but not yet enough to truly 'get it.'

I see a new Enlightenment on the horizon...

A New America.

**Percy** · 22nd-June-2008

Six generations (three up and three down) seems rather short to me. That's just 150 years, at 25 years per generation.. The Roman lasted 800 (32 generations) and left a legacy of law that lasted much longer. The British - more modern, rose in the 1500's and peaked in the early 1900's. It declined only through the two world wars in the first half of the 1900's and American deliberate coercion to dismantle its Empire over a whole century. That's 500 years at least. (20 generations).

America has taken two hundred years to rise to power. It has had 50 years at its peak. It has maybe 50 left if husbanded carefully. (2 generations). And that is because of the rising prosperity of India and China as well as its own internal contradictions.

**julie** · 22nd-June-2008

RR, the words in your comment were jusst beauuuutifulll.

Tyrael, this is fantastic.
I was saying to a friend today, "look at the names of the sites I am finding this information on". All bible-ish sites.

**Tyrael** · 22nd-June-2008

Quote from Percy

America has taken two hundred years to rise to power. It has had 50 years at its peak. It has maybe 50 left if husbanded carefully. (12 generations). And that is because of the rising prosperity of India and China as well as its own internal contradictions.

The difference now is that everything moves a lot faster (information, production, consumption, change), so the rise and fall of civilizations does too. Maybe America can improve its horrid family and father's rights policy based on superior examples of other countries, unless it has become too arrogant and self-centered.

A long time ago during the Roman Empire it took many years to build a road from Venice to Rome, but now it requires a couple of days.

Quote from RedRooster

I think these cycle's seem to be happening quickly now, because they probably are. We have learned something from history, but not yet enough to truly 'get it.'

Yes, but the dark ages was not a "fun" time to live in to say the least. It isn't called the dark or middle ages for nothing.
Humans should be able to avoid the re-occuring societal implosions by correcting the course on time. Otherwise I doubt humans can come far if they are dependent on such catastrophies to shake them back in order.

**RedRooster** · 22nd-June-2008

Quote from Tyrael

Maybe America can improve its horrid family and father's rights policy based on superior examples of other countries, unless it has become too arrogant and self-centered.

Self-Centered... I like that word. Perhaps if our politicians could become a little more self-centered they'd quite acting like friggin' jackasses who concentrate on everything but the self. 'Save the children', 'save the poor', 'save the mothers', save this group, save that group, save.... Aren't we safe enough? How safe do they want to keep us?

Ahh... but your right, they're arrogant and vain hypocrites playing the good samaritan in order to gain more and more power over we the people.

I'm from the ghetto, I know what a PIMP is!

Quote from Tyrael

Yes, but the dark ages was not a "fun" time to live in to say the least. It isn't called the dark or middle ages for nothing.
Humans should be able to avoid the re-occuring societal implosions by correcting the course on time. Otherwise I doubt humans can come far if they are dependent on such catastrophies to shake them back in order.

I Agree. I hope humans 'get it' and 'get it' right this time around!

**Percy** · 22nd-June-2008

The difference now is that everything moves a lot faster (information, production, consumption, change), so the rise and fall of civilizations does too.

Yes, Tyrael. Speed-up was one inference that I intended to be made from the time-scales I drew attention to. I was putting a counter to Unwin's 1935 view as quoted at the start. I also showed that his specific time-frame estimate did not accord with the evidence. Whether the reduced longevity over the time-span of 2000 years is an aspect of the same speed up as that experienced in our reasonably recent techological period is a matter of conjecture. It could be the other way around.

I rather suspect it is. I would anticipate that the longievity of civilisations is subject to a natural law which provides parameters to development and decay. That has yet to be discovered.

**bola** · 22nd-June-2008

Like many people, I often wonder what the future will bring.

I don't find the comparisons with ancient cultures very meaningful. Our highly rationalized society is fundamentally different from those early ones. The Roman empire may look impressive in our eyes, but compared to us it was still a fairly primitive, vulnerable construct. It didn't have the enormous redundancy that our society has.

Also, I'm not sure what a collapse of a society exactly means. Did the Roman society 'collapse'? Or did it 'evolve'? Is the Holy Roman Empire not a valid continuation of the Roman empire. What I see there is a transformation rather than a radical change.

The Aztec and Inca societies collapsed,you could argue, but they were very isolated.

In spite of the gross mismanagement of Russia during communism, the Russian society didn't collapse. It just developed serious chronic social ills. Corruption, stagnation, low morale, low quality of services and products, alcohol abuse etc.

What 'humanism' is doing to our society may be considered annoying in its stupidity, infuriating in its unnecessary destructiveness, but the idea that it will conveniently invalidate itself by creating a major social crisis, seems like wishful thinking to me. Corrective measures will be taken, solutions will be improvised and we will simply plod along.

**RobYork** · 22nd-June-2008

One Sunday morning, in June 1933, the Lord Jesus spoke to William Marrion Branham, (His vindicated Prophet) and said that the return of the Lord was drawing nigh, but that before He came, seven major events would transpire.

The Lord gave His Prophet seven major continuous visions, this is the seventh and final vision..........
"The last and seventh vision was wherein I heard a most terrible explosion. As I turned to look I saw nothing but debris, craters, and smoke all over the land of America"

Soon America will be destroyed !!

There is still time to get right with God......
2 Corinthians 6:2.
For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Robert.

**RedRooster** · 24th-June-2008

Rob, Rob, Rob, no disrespect... but I think you would be doing the lord more justice by frequenting a satan worship forum. I'm not sure which brand of Christianity you are pulling these modern day prophets from, but I've heard of nary a one, and I suspect all my good church going family in Texas hasn't either.

Evangelism is a dying art, right up there with selling Sasparilly out of wagons.

God bless you, and God Bless the USA,

RR

**Percy** · 24th-June-2008

One Sunday morning, in June 1933, the Lord Jesus spoke to William Marrion Branham,

..... according to....?

Why Mr Branham of course.

Of course.

Soon America will be destroyed !!

I'm sure a lot of people will cheer and some will cry, but you can't please everyone.

If it doesn't happen, some will say, "Just you wait".

Rob, do you believe all this crap?

And if so, WHY, for goodness sake?

**bachelor tom** · 24th-June-2008

Quote from bola

Like many people, I often wonder what the future will bring.

I don't the find comparisons with ancient cultures very meaningful. Our highly rationalized society is fundamentally different from those early ones. The Roman empire may look impressive in our eyes, but compared to us it was still a fairly primitive, vulnerable construct. It didn't have the enormous redundancy that our society has.

Also, I'm not sure what a collapse of a society exactly means. Did the Roman society 'collapse'? Or did it 'evolve'? Is the Holy Roman Empire not a valid continuation of the Roman empire. What I see there is a transformation rather than a radical change.

The Aztec and Inca societies collapsed,you could argue, but they were very isolated.

In spite of the gross mismanagement of Russia during communism, the Russian society didn't collapse. It just developed serious chronic social ills. Corruption, stagnation, low morale, low quality of services and products, alcohol abuse etc.

What 'humanism' is doing to our society may be considered annoying in its stupidity, infuriating in its unnecessary destructiveness, but the idea that it will conveniently invalidate itself by creating a major social crisis, seems like wishful thinking to me. Corrective measures will be taken, solutions will be improvised and we will simply plod along.

Quite sensible.

It could be argued that a major difference in the modern world is the spectre of total annihilation. It's true that ancient societies practised genocide and inadvertent environmental destruction, but we now have the means to deliberately wipe out the whole biosphere.

For instance, if religious terrorists start lobbing suitcase nukes around we could face a very nasty future.

**Percy** · 24th-June-2008

....but we now have the means to deliberately wipe out the whole biosphere.

I don't see any immanent danger of that. The biosphere has been wiped pretty clean several times already by celestial events, and regenerated. (we nearly had one two christmases ago with a supernova X-ray shock wave which nearly flattened our planetary electromagnetic protection).

The human race itself was reduced to around 2000 people only 70,000 years ago, according to paleontological estimates.

The 'clear and present danger' is disease of the noosphere and its continuance in a diseased state.

**RobYork** · 24th-June-2008

Quote from Percy

..... according to....?

Why Mr Branham of course.

Of course.

I'm sure a lot of people will cheer and some will cry, but you can't please everyone.

If it doesn't happen, some will say, "Just you wait".

Rob, do you believe all this crap?

And if so, WHY, for goodness sake?

Hi Percy,

God stated in the word of God that God would send a Prophet in the End Times that is to say “Right now”

God`s chosen vessel was William Marrion Branham.

God raised the dead on FIVE occasions through this ministry.

God was photographed, veiled in the form of the Pillar of Fire on SIX occasions.

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Robert.

**bachelor tom** · 24th-June-2008

Quote from RobYork

Hi Percy,

God stated in the word of God that God would send a Prophet in the End Times that is to say “Right now”

God`s chosen vessel was William Marrion Branham.

God raised the dead on FIVE occasions through this ministry.

God was photographed, veiled in the form of the Pillar of Fire on SIX occasions.

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Robert.

Rob, many Jews of the first century were convinced that the end of the world was near - instead of the kingdom of Heaven they got destruction and dispersion (first and second Jewish Revolts 66 & 135 A.D.) - apocalypticism is a death wish