Author Archives: G.S. Griffin

Protect Your Relationship From Politics at All Costs

Posted on by under Politics

There’s a delightful scene in Spiderman: Far From Home:

“You look really pretty,” Peter Parker tells MJ, his voice nearly shaking. They stand in a theatre as an orchestra warms up.

“And therefore I have value?” MJ replies, peering at her crush from the corner of her eye.

“No,” Peter says quickly. “No, that’s not what I meant at all, I was just –“

“I’m messing with you.” A devilish smile crosses her face. “Thank you. You look pretty, too.”

To me, the moment hints at the need to insulate love from politics. In my own experience and in conversations with others, I’ve come across the perhaps not-uncommon question of how, in an age when politics has ventured into (some would say infected or poisoned) every aspect of life, do partners prevent division and discomfort? There are probably various answers, because there are various combinations of human beings and ideologies, but I’ll focus on what interests me the most and what the above scene most closely speaks to: love on the Left.

For partnerships of Leftists, or liberals, or liberals and Leftists, political disagreements may be rare (perhaps less so for the latter). But arguments and tensions can arise even if you and your partner(s) fall on the same place on the spectrum, because we are all, nevertheless, individuals with unique perspectives who favor different reasoning, tactics, policies, and so on. If this has never happened to you in your current relationship, you’ve either found something splendidly exceptional or simply not given it enough time. I recently spoke to a friend, D, who is engaged to E. They are both liberals, but D is at times spoken to as if this wasn’t the case, as if an education is in order, even over things they essentially agree on but approach in slightly different ways. Arguments can ensue. For me personally, there exists plenty of fodder for disagreements with someone likeminded: I’m fiercely against a Democratic expansion of the Supreme Court, and have in other ways critiqued fellow Leftists. This is what nuanced, independent thinkers are supposed to do, but it can create those “Christ, my person isn’t a true believer” moments.

If partners choose to engage in political dialogue (more on that choice in a moment), it’s probably a fine idea for both to make a strong verbal commitment to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. That’s a rule that a scene from a silly superhero movie reminded me of. MJ offered this to Peter, while at the same time making a joke based in feminist criticism. She could have bit off his head in earnest. Had she been talking to a cat-caller on the street, a toxic stranger on the internet, a twit on Twitter, she probably would have. But this isn’t a nobody, it’s someone she likes. Her potential partner and relationship are thus insulated from politics. She assumes or believes that Peter doesn’t value her just for her looks. He isn’t made to represent the ugliness of men. There’s a grace extended to Peter that others may not get or deserve. Obviously, we tend to do this with people we know, like family and friends. We know they’re probably coming from a good place, they’ve earned that grace, and so on. (There may be a case to extend this mercy to all people, until compelled to retract it, among other solutions, in the interests of cooling the national temperature and keeping us from tearing each other to pieces, but we’ll leave that aside.)

But thinking and talking about all this, which we often fail to do, seems important. How do I protect my relationship from politics? Hey, could we give each other the benefit of the doubt? Arguments between likeminded significant others can be birthed or worsened by not assuming the best right from the start. Each person should suppose, for example, that an education is not in order. I call it seeing scaffolding beneath ideas. If your person posits a belief, whether too radical or reactionary, that shocks your conscience, your first instinct might be to argue, “That’s obviously wrong/terrible, due to Reasons 1, 2, 3, and 4.” You know, to bite your lover’s head off. But this isn’t some faceless idiot on the screen. Instead, assume they know those reasons already — because they probably do — and reached their conclusion anyway. Imagine that Reasons 1-4 are already there, the education is already there, forming the scaffolding to this other idea. Instead of immediately correcting them, ask them how they reached that perspective, given their understanding of Reasons 1-4 (if they’ve never heard of those, then proceed with an education). No progressive partner wants to be misrepresented, to hear that they only think this way because they don’t understand something, are a man and therefore think in dreadful male ways (like Peter and the joke), and so on: you think that because you’re a woman, white or black, straight or gay, poor or wealthy, too far Left or not far enough, not a true believer. Someone’s knowledge, beliefs, or identity-based perspective can be flawed, yes — suppose it’s not until proven otherwise. These things determine one’s mode of thought; suppose it’s in a positive way first. “Well, well, well, sounds like the straight white man wants to be shielded from critique!” God, yes. With your lover, I think it’s nice to be seen as a human being first. I certainly want to be seen as a human being before being seen as a man, for instance. I don’t want to represent or stand in for men in any fashion. A disgusting thought. Some will say that’s an attempt to stand apart from men to pretend my views aren’t impacted in negative ways by my maleness — to avoid the valid criticisms of maleness and thus myself. Perhaps so. But maybe others also wish to be seen as a human being before a woman, a human being before an African American, a human being before a Leftist. Because politics has engulfed everything, there are so few places left where this is possible. It may not be doable or even desirable to look at other people or all people in this way, but having one person to do it with is lovely. Or a few, for the polyamorous. It’s a tempting suggestion, to shield our love from politics, to transcend it in some way (Anne Hathaway, in an Interstellar line that was wildly inappropriate for her scientist character, said that love was the one thing that transcended time and space — ending with “politics” would have made more sense). One way of doing that is to assume the best in your partner, and see before you an individual beyond belief systems, beyond identity, beyond ignorance. Again, until forced to do otherwise. All this can be tough for Leftists and liberals, because we’re so often at each other’s throats, racing to be the most pure or woke, and so on. There exists little humility. We want to lecture, not listen. Debate, not discuss. It’s a habit that can bleed into relationships, but small changes can reduce unwanted tensions and conflict. (If it’s wanted, if it keeps things spicy, I apologize for wasting your time. Enjoy the make-up sex.)

I do not know if rightwing lovers experience comparable fights, but I imagine all this could be helpful to them as well. They have their own independent thinkers and failed true believers.

An even better way to protect your relationship from politics is to simply refuse to speak of such things. Purposefully avoid the disagreements. This may be best for those dating across the ideological divide (though offering the benefit of the doubt would still be best for the Right-Left pairings or groupings that choose to engage in discourse). This may be surprising, but this is generally my preferred method, whether I’m dating someone who thinks as I do or rather differently. (I of course have a proclivity for a partner who shares my values, but I have dated and probably still could date conservatives, if they were of the anti-Trump variety. Some people are too far removed from my beliefs to be of interest, which is natural. This article is not arguing one should stay with a partner who turns out to have terrible views or supports a terrible man. This is also why “respect each other’s views” is a guideline unworthy of mention. Apart from being too obvious, it at some point should not be done.) Perhaps it’s because so much of my work, writing, and reading has to do with politics. I would rather unplug and not discuss such things with a mate, nor with many close friends and family members. Though it happens every now and then. If partners together commit to making this a general policy, it can be quite successful. And why not? While I see the appeal of learning and growing with your person through meaningful discussion of the issues, it risks having something come between you, and having an oasis from the noise and nightmare sounds even better, just as loving your partner for who they are sounds much less stressful than trying to change them.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

The “Witches” Killed at Salem Were Women Who Stepped Out of Line

Posted on by under History

In The Devil in the Shape of a Woman, historian Carol F. Karlsen argues that established social attitudes toward women in seventeenth-century New England, and earlier centuries in Europe, explain why women were the primary victims of witch hunts in places like Salem, Fairfield, and elsewhere.[1] Indeed, she posits, women who willingly or inadvertently stepped out of line, who violated expected gender norms, were disproportionately likely to be accused in Puritan society. After establishing that roughly 80% of accused persons in New England from 1620 to 1725 were women, and that men represented both two-thirds of accusers and all of those in positions to decide the fates of the accused, Karlsen observes women’s deviant behaviors or states of affairs that drew Puritan male ire.[2] For instance: “Most witches in New England were middle-aged or old women eligible for inheritances because they had no brothers or sons.”[3] When husbands or fathers had no choice but to leave property to daughters and wives, this violated the favored and common patrilineal succession of the era. Further, women who committed the sins of “discontent, anger, envy, malice, seduction, lying, and pride,” which were strongly associated with their sex, failed to behave as proper Christian women and thus hinted at allegiances to the devil, putting them at risk of accusation.[4] The scholar is careful to note, however, that in the historical record accusers, prosecutors, juries, magistrates, and so on did not explicitly speak of such things as evidence of witchcraft.[5] But the trends suggest that concern over these deviations, whether subliminal or considered, played a role in the trials and executions.

Karlsen’s case is well-crafted. Part of its power is its simplicity: a preexisting ideology about women primed the (male and female) residents of towns like Salem to see witches in female form far more often than male. The fifth chapter could be considered the centerpiece of the work because it most closely examines the question of what a woman was — the view of her nature by the intensely patriarchal societies of Europe and how this view was adopted and modified, or left intact, by the Puritans. Christian Europe saw women as more evil than men.[6] They were of the same nature as Eve, who sought forbidden knowledge, betrayed God, and tempted man. Believed to be “created intellectually, morally, and physically weaker,” women were thought to have “more uncontrollable appetites” for sins like the seven above.[7] It is Karlsen’s exploration of this background that is foundational to the argument. If Christians had long seen women as more evil, a notion of witches-as-women in New England would have been a natural outgrowth (America’s early female religious dissenters, among other developments, added fuel to the fire).[8] The fact that associations between women and witchcraft existed in the European mind before the Puritans set foot in North America reinforces this.[9] Karlsen quotes fifteenth- and sixteenth-century writers: “More women than men are ministers of the devil,” “All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which in women is insatiable,” “Because Christ did not permit women to administer his sacraments…they are given more authority than men in the administration of the devil’s execrations,” and so on.[10] Another penned that middle aged and older women received no sexual attention from men so they had to seek it from the devil.[11]

Indeed, Karlsen’s use of primary sources is appreciable. She extensively cites witchcraft trials in New England and works by ministers such as Cotton Mather, not only as anecdotal evidence but also, alongside public and family records, to tabulate data, primarily to show that women were special targets of the witch hunts and that most had or might receive property.[12] The author leaves little room for disputing that witch hunt victims were not quite model Puritan women, and that the Puritans believed that those who in any way stepped outside their “place in the social order were the very embodiments of evil,” and therefore had to be destroyed.[13] The work is organized along those lines, which is sensible and engaging. But a stumble occurs during a later dalliance with secondary sources.

One piece of the story — appearing on the last couple pages of the last chapter — stands out as underdeveloped. Karlsen posits that the physical ailments the Puritans blamed on possession, such as convulsions and trances, were psychological breaks, a “physical and emotional response to a set of social conditions,” indeed the social order itself.[14] The gender hierarchy and oppressive religious system were, in other words, too much to bear. Karlsen does cite anthropologists that have studied this phenomenon in other societies, where the minds of oppressed peoples, usually women, split from normalcy and enter states that allow them to disengage from and freely lash out at their oppressors, as, Karlsen argues, possessed New England women did.[15] But the causes of physical manifestations are such a significant part of the story that they deserve far more attention, indeed their own chapter (most of Karlsen’s final chapter explores the questions of who was most likely to be possessed, how they acted, and how the Puritans explained the phenomenon, though it is framed as a culturally-created power struggle early on).[16] This would allow Karlsen room to bring in more sources and better connect the New England story to other anthropological findings, and to flesh out the argument. For instance, she writes that convulsions and other altered states would have been “most common in women raised in particularly religious households,” but does not show that this was true for possessed women in New England.[17] How the ten men who were possessed fit into this hypothesis is unclear.[18] Things also grow interpretive, a perhaps necessary but always perilous endeavor: “…in their inability to eat for days on end, [possessed women] spoke to the depths of their emotional hunger and deprivation, perhaps as well to the denial of their sexual appetites.”[19] This is unsupported. In the dim light of speculation and limited attention, other causes of “possession,” such as historian Linnda Caporael’s ergotism theory (convulsions and hallucinations due to a fungus found in rye), remain enticing.[20] Minds are forced to remain open to causes beyond social pressures, and indeed to multiple, conjoining factors. How physical symptoms arose, of course, does not affect the thesis that prior ideology led to the targeting of women. The concern is whether the anthropological theory fit so well with Karlsen’s thesis — the targeting of women and the physical ailments being the results of a repressive society — that she both gravitated toward the latter and did not grant it the lengthier study it warranted.

Overall, Karlsen’s work is important. As she noted in her introduction, prior historians had given little focus to the role of gender in American witch hunts.[21] Their witch hunts had little to do with the suspicions about women’s nature or the dismay over women pushing against the gender hierarchy and religious order. Written in the late 1980s, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman represented a breakthrough and a turning point. It is a must read for anyone interested in the topic.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

[1] Carol F. Karlsen, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998), xiii-xiv. See chapter 5, especially pages 153-162, for European origins.

[2] Ibid., 47-48.

[3] Ibid., 117.

[4] Ibid., 119.

[5] Ibid., 153.

[6] Ibid., 155.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 127-128 and chapter 6.

[9] Ibid., chapter 5.

[10] Ibid., 155-156.

[11] Ibid., 157.

[12] See for example ibid., 48-49, 102-103.

[13] Ibid., 181.

[14] Ibid., 248-251.

[15] Ibid., 246-247, with anthropologists cited on footnote 69, page 249, and footnote 71, page 251.

[16] Ibid., 231, 246.

[17] Ibid., 250.

[18] Ibid., 224.

[19] Ibid., 250.

[20] Linnda R. Caporael, “Ergotism: The Satan Loosed in Salem?,” Science 192, no. 4234 (1976): 21–26, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1741715.

[21] Karlsen, The Devil, xii-xiii.

Scotty’s Missing Finger

Posted on by under History

James Doohan’s Montgomery Scott wasn’t often the centerpiece of “Star Trek” storylines, but he could always be counted on to save the day by eking some kind of miracle out of the Enterprise’s transporters or warp engines. Doohan’s performance was lively, and “Scotty” lovable and charismatic, even if the Canadian actor’s for-television accent was once included on the BBC’s list of “Film Crimes Against the Scottish Accent.” According to The Guardian, Doohan based the voice on that of a Scottish soldier he met in World War II.

Indeed, Doohan was a soldier before he had any interest in acting. He joined the Canadian artillery after high school, right as the largest conflict in human history was brewing. He rose to the rank of lieutenant and was sent to Britain to prepare for Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy (Valour Canada). Long before Scotty saved Kirk, Spock, and his other comrades from all sorts of alien enemies and celestial phenomena, he led men into the fires of D-Day, June 6, 1944. 

Following a naval and aerial bombardment, Canadian units stormed Juno Beach. James Doohan and his men unknowingly ran across an anti-tank minefield, being too light to detonate the defenses (Snopes). Bullets piercing all around, they reached cover and advanced inland. Doohan made his first two kills of the war by silencing German snipers in a church tower in Graye Sur Mer. 

After securing their positions, Doohan and his troops rested that evening. But just before midnight, everything went wrong for our future chief engineer. Stepping away from the command post for a smoke, on his way back his body was riddled with at least half a dozen bullets. The middle finger of his right hand was torn off, four bullets hit his knee, and one hit his chest, but did minimal injury because it happened to strike the silver cigarette case in his breast pocket. But this was no German attack. It was friendly fire.

According to Valour Canada, James Doohan was shot by a Canadian sentry who mistook him in the night for a German soldier. This sentry has been described as “nervous” and “trigger-happy” (Snopes). Doohan later said that his body had so much adrenaline pumping through it after the shooting that he walked to the medical post without even realizing his knee had been hit.
Doohan survived the incident and the war, moved to the United States, and started acting in 1950 (IMDb). Sixteen years later, after small roles in “Gunsmoke,” “The Twilight Zone,” “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.,” and more, he landed the part that would bring him global fame. According to StarTrek.com, Doohan had a hand double to conceal the missing finger while filming close-ups on “Star Trek.” However, it is still obvious in many shots, stills of which fans have collected, for instance on this Stack Exchange.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Will the NFL Convert to Flag Football in the Next Century?

Posted on by under Politics

A big part of the fun of American football is players smashing into each other. From the gladiatorial spectacles of Rome to today’s boxing, UFC/MMA, and football, watching contestants exchange blows, draw blood, and even kill one another has proved wildly entertaining. I know I have base instincts as well that enjoy, or are at least still engrossed by, brutal sport. I write “at least still” because the NFL has become harder to watch knowing the severe brain damage it’s causing.

This prompts some moral musings. The NFL certainly has the moral responsibility to thoroughly inform every player of the risks (and to not bury the scientific findings, as they once did). If all players understand the dangers, there is probably no ethical burden on them — morality is indeed about what does harm to others, but if all volunteer to exchange CTE-producing blows that’s fine. Beating up a random person on the street is wrong, but boxing isn’t, because it’s voluntary. In a scenario where some football players know the risks but not all, that’s a bit trickier. Is there something wrong about potentially giving someone brain damage who doesn’t know that’s a possibility, when you know? As for fans, is there a moral burden to only support a league (with purchases, viewership, etc.) that educates all its players on CTE? But say everyone is educated; if afterwards the NFL still has a moral duty to make the game safer through better pads and rules to reduce concussions, does it by extension also have the moral duty to end contact and tackles to eliminate concussions? There’s much to think about.

In any case, after head trauma findings could no longer be ignored, the NFL made, and continues to make, rule changes to improve safety (to limited effect thus far). Better helmets, elimination of head-to-head blows, trying to reduce kick returns, banning blindside blocks, and so on. At training camp, players are even wearing helmets over their helmets this year. Though some complain the game is being ruined, and others suggest the NFL is hardly doing enough, all can agree that the trend is toward player safety. Meanwhile, some young NFL players have quit as they’ve come to understand the risks. They don’t want disabilities and early death.

A parallel trend is the promotion of flag football. The NFL understands, Mike Florio notes, that if flag can be popularized all over the world then the NFL itself will become more international and make boatloads more money. It’s not really about safety (except perhaps for children). The organization helped get flag football into the World Games 2022 and promoted the journeys of the U.S. men and women’s teams, and is now trying for the 2028 Olympics. NFL teams have youth flag leagues, and Michael Vick, Chad Ochocinco, and Terrell Owens are playing in the NFL-televised American Flag Football League. The Pro Bowl is being replaced with a skills competition and a flag football game.

Troy Vincent, an NFL vice president, said recently, “When we talk about the future of the game of football, it is, no question, flag. When I’ve been asked over the last 24 months, in particular, what does the next 100 years look like when you look at football, not professional football, it’s flag. It’s the inclusion and the true motto of ‘football for all.’ There is a place in flag football for all.” He was careful to exclude the professional game here, focusing on opening the sport to girls, women, and poorer kids in the U.S. and around the world, but one wonders how long that exception will hold. If current trajectories continue, with a growth of flag and a reduction of ferocity in the NFL, one day a tipping point may be reached. It won’t happen easily if the NFL thinks such a change would cut into its profits, but it’s possible. It may not be in 50 years or 100, but perhaps after 200 or 500.

Changes in sports — the rules, the equipment, everything — may be concerning but should never be surprising. Many years ago, football looked rather different, after all. You know, when you couldn’t pass the ball forward, the center used his foot instead of his hands to snap, the point after was actually four points, you could catch your own punt and keep the ball, etc. The concussion crisis has of course also spurred calls to take the NFL back to pre-1940s style of play, getting rid of helmets and other protections to potentially improve safety. There’s evidence players protect their heads and those of others better when they don’t feel armored and invincible. This is another possible future. However, it’s also a fact that early football was much deadlier, and the dozens of boys and men who died each year playing it almost ended the sport in the early 20th century, so one may not want to get rid of too many modern pads and rules if we’re to keep tackle. An apparent contradiction like this means many factors are at play, and will have to be carefully parsed out. Perhaps a balance can be found — less armor but not too little — for optimal safety.

Though my organized tackle and flag experiences ended after grade school, with only backyard versions of each popping up here and there later on, I always considered flag just as fun to play. And while I think the flag of the World Games is played on far too narrow a field, and both it and the AFFL need field goals, kicks, light-contact linemen, and running backs (my flag teams had these), they’re both fairly entertaining (watch here and here). One misses the collisions and take-downs, but the throws, nabs, jukes, picks, and dives are all good sport. No, it’s not the same, but the future rarely is.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Why Have There Been Authoritarian Socialist Countries But Not a Democratic Socialist One?

Posted on by under Socialism

In Christianity and Socialism Both Inspired Murderous Governments and Tyrants. Should We Abandon Both?, we observed the flawed idea that authoritarian socialist nations like the Soviet Union started as democratic socialist societies. By recognizing that socialism since its inception has existed in different forms advocated by different people (bottom-up, democratic, peaceful vs. top-down, authoritarian, violent), just like Christianity and other religions past and present (peaceful missionary work, coexistence, and church-state separation vs. violent conquest, forced conversion, and authoritarian theocracy), and by looking at history, the slippery slope argument disintegrated.

The societal changes socialists push for have already been achieved, in ways large and small, without horrors all over the world, from worker cooperatives to systems of direct democracy to universal healthcare and education, public work programs guaranteeing jobs, and Universal Basic Income (see Why America Needs Socialism). These incredible reforms have occurred in democratic, free societies, with no signs of Stalinism on the horizon. The slippery slope fallacy is constantly applied to socialism and basically any progressive policy (remember, racial integration is communism), but it doesn’t have any more merit than when it is applied to Christianity [i.e. peaceful missionary work always leading to theocracy]. Those who insist that leaders and governments set out to implement these types of positive socialistic reforms but then everything slid into dictatorship and awfulness as a result basically have no understanding of history, they’re just completely divorced from historical knowledge. Generally, when you actually study how nations turned communist, you see that a Marxist group, party, or person already deeply authoritarian achieved power and then ruled, expectedly, in an authoritarian manner, implementing policies that sometimes resemble what modern socialists call for but often do not (for example, worker ownership of the workplace is incompatible with government ownership of the workplace; direct democratic decision-making is incompatible with authoritarian control; and so forth). It’s authoritarians who are most likely to use violence in the first place; anti-authoritarians generally try to find peaceful means of creating change, if possible. (Which can take much longer, requiring the built consensus of much of the citizenry. This is one reason authoritarian socialist countries exist but no true democratic socialist society. It’s quicker to just use force. The latter needs more time.)

Note that citations are provided in the original article. Now, all this was worth a bit more commentary. If you can show someone that, despite some socialistic reforms, there hasn’t been a democratic socialist (libertarian socialist, market socialist) nation yet in human history, only authoritarian socialist (communist) ones, that there was no devolution from one to the other, the next question is Why? Why has communism existed and succeeded, with State control of all workplaces, the abolition of the market, and totalitarianism, but not democratic socialism, where workers control their workplaces, the government offers universal healthcare, education, and jobs or income, and citizens enjoy participatory democracy?

The answer was touched upon at the end of the quote above. It’s about time and values. All this is a bit like asking why there hasn’t been a Mormon theocracy yet, or a nation with Mormonism as its official religion, or a country with a majority Mormon population (saying Tonga is majority LDS is a bit of a stretch). Mormonism, a sect of Christianity, began in the 1830s, at the same time socialism was born under Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and others (Marx was still a boy). There hasn’t been a nation with a (serious) majority Mormon citizenry because it hasn’t grown popular enough over the past 200 years. There has never been an LDS theocracy or an officially LDS nation because 1) the belief system has yet to become popular enough, or 2) there has been no group that has overthrown existing power structures through violence or been willing to use force and oppression after legitimately ascending to power. The same can be said of democratic socialism — neither option has occurred as of this moment. In contrast, number 2 was reached by authoritarian socialist leaders and groups, even if number 1 wasn’t beforehand. (Unlike Mormonism, traditional Christianity had both enough time and the right ideologues to achieve both high popularity in some places and to violently crush anyone who stood in its way in others. So did Islam.) This all makes a great deal of sense. As noted, if authoritarians are more likely to use violence, they have a fast-track to power. To the ability to swiftly enact societal transformations. And without the consensus of the population, they may have to rule with an iron fist to get everyone in line.

Radicals who are not authoritarian socialists, and are less likely to use force to get what they want (again, what they want is something rather different), have no such shortcut. The Frenchman Ernest Lesigne wrote in his 1887 poem “The Two Socialisms” that one socialism “has faith in a cataclysm,” whereas the other “knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.” Most democratic socialists have little interest in cataclysmic violent revolution; at most, only a great nonviolent national strike. Instead, they must educate the populace, change the minds of the majority. They must push for reforms. It takes far longer, but — not that democratic socialists desire this either — you won’t have to rule by terror when it’s all over. A slow, peaceful transition not only wins but requires the consent of the governed. And as mentioned in the beginning of the quote, this metamorphosis is underway. Places like Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Europe are moving away from free market capitalism and toward social democracy, which is a stepping stone to democratic socialism. America has drifted as well, though not as far. If a couple centuries is not enough, we’ll see where we’re at in 500 years or 1,000. There is no magic number, no predictable date of victory. Just because democratic socialism hasn’t happened yet does not mean it won’t, nor does this fact discredit the idea — Mormonism is not untrue or bad because it is not yet hugely popular, any more than embryonic Christianity in A.D. 100. Capitalism took a very long time to become the dominant world system, replacing feudalism. The full realization of the next stage will experience the same.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.