The End Of The Age Of Benevolence

Authored by Francis Marion of, via Jim Quinn's Burning Platform blog,

The history of democracy, Marxism and feminism is the history of the snake, which, being hungry for more, stalks its own tail and consumes itself.

Some evenings I sit on the sofa in the family room with my teenage daughter and watch a TV program with her. I leave the choice of the show to her, it matters little to me, and when she finds something she likes she sits next to me, puts her head on my shoulder, and snuggles up for the hour it takes to watch whatever it is she’s chosen.

It’s our time.

Occasionally we’ll sneak in another twenty or thirty minutes to the objection of her mother but I like my time with her so I put up with the raised eyebrows and the, “She’s got school tomorrow,” scoldings. It’s important to me that she knows I love her, that I want to spend time with her and that she feels safe when she is with me. Someday, when she is a grown woman I want her to find a man that will take care of her and protect her like I do. I expect no less from a suitor and neither should she.

There will be women who read this who will object to my stance. They will say, “She doesn’t need a man to feel safe or validated or content,” but I would disagree. When she gets older she’ll need a good man, not just any man, and that’s as true today as much as it was ten years, twenty years, fifty years, one hundred years and even one thousand years ago. And it will become even more so as time goes on.

Indeed, we have reached peak denial in our civilization and whether we like it or not reality is about to make a come back.

The freedom that we have enjoyed in the west and the modern democracies that have sprung forth from our evolving and enlightened philosophies over the past few hundred years are not a given. Granted, they are preferable outcomes given our natural state but politically speaking they are an anomaly in the history of mankind and not the norm.

As such, democracy and the systems, social structures and institutions that have grown up around them are grossly misunderstood by the vast majority of the western world. Most of the people living in the west today have been raised to believe that democracy is a moral system of governance and that it is our gift to the rest of mankind. But democracy is not an inherently moral system nor is it a guarantor of linear, progressive political growth.

At its root democracy is quite simple. It is the exercise of political power by the majority over the minority. It is the power to choose in matters of politics. This, of course, begs the question: to choose what?

Since choices in general (and political ones are no exception) can be either good or bad, in this case, both for the individual and the body politic, then it follows that democracy is neither. It is nothing more than a tool for decision making where the majority holds the power to make decisions that affect everyone, either for better or for worse. Democracy is, therefore, a reflection of the character of the people who exercise it.

Additionally, democracy is also the use of soft force. That is, the minority bends to the will of the majority on political matters and the apparatus of the state is responsible for carrying out its demands. The minority consents, willingly or unwillingly not because violence is present but because, by the state’s presence, it is implied.

More importantly, though, democracy is a luxury that is preceded by benevolence but does not necessarily guarantee its continuance or creation if forgotten.

Societies in a state of internal turmoil, or where competing factions vie for political power, often through the use of overt physical violence, will forgo democracy because the primary component for its exercise, order, is absent.

Democracy in the western world has always followed ‘order’. ‘Order’ is a byproduct of force and, like democracy varies in severity on the scale of good and bad, its moral leanings by and large being dependent on the type of people who impose it from the top down. It can be fatherly and benevolent or it can be violent and oppressive. It is never universally both.

Thus democracy usually occurs where ‘order’ has been established and the apparatus of the state is at least somewhat benevolent.

In a political world ruled by strength, order and benevolence are precursors to suffrage. Without either suffrage would not exist, choices would be limited and brute strength would still be the order of the day.

Whether feminists are willing to admit it or not, brute, physical strength is at the root of all political power, thus feminism came into being because those who held that strength chose to exercise benevolence and reason over strength and subjugation. Their suffrage was dependent first and foremost on the benevolence of those who held political power. And like it or not, those who held political power at the time it was introduced were men.

As time progressed, at least in the West, democracy, and universal suffrage gave way to both physical and intellectual freedom for women. In the West during the twentieth century, its political structure (and the intellectual values it embodied) and the industrial revolution it spawned ushered in a new era for women, giving them choices they had not previously had, by and large, since the beginning of recorded history.

Women were finally free to choose between family, career or both. Rather than playing the role of the weaker, subservient sex women found their place beside men in society as intellectual equals. Physical strength was no longer a factor in the social structure of our civilization. An intellectual meritocracy came to be valued over a system based simply on brute force. This structure was the product of order created from benevolent strength.

But the rise of Marxism and feminism, particularly the rise of third-wave feminism has put ‘order’ at risk.

Without order, an intellectual meritocracy will once again become subservient to strength. It’s a hard pill for women and progressive liberals in general to swallow but it’s a fact.

Marxism and modern feminism work continuously towards a perfect world but ignore reality in the process. They forget an important lesson, born true repeatedly throughout history:

There is no utopia.

The best we can hope for in any civilization is for a society to be built and based on fundamental individual rights and freedoms. If we refuse this then we return to what we were before. This means rule by brute force which means the end of political and legal equality for women and the death of democracy itself.

The irony in the dilemma which the West now faces is that our demise, the continual erosion of a democratic, intellectual meritocracy, is by and large spurred on by the very people that our system was created to protect.

Feminists, both female and male, cry daily for more of the same poison which infects us.

More illegal and unscreened immigration. More tolerance of philosophies which are intolerant themselves. More invitations for an enemy created by a corrupt and immoral government to ignore our borders and live among us.

More cries for moral nihilism, the repression of speech (one of the cornerstones of their own suffrage) and the denial of fundamental biological reality.

More cries for the denial of basic math and the continuance of government-sponsored bread and circuses. More of everything which our civilization cannot sustain. More of everything which rots us from the core.

Subsequently, modern feminists decry the men of their own civilization as misogynists, racists, and intolerant while forgetting it was their own men who recognized that a society built on equal political rights for all was preferable to a society built on spoils taken by the strong.

They forget that it was the men they live among who valued justice over greed and force so much that they shed the old ways and took their place beside their women instead of in front of them. They do all of this while cheering on the invasion of their own countries by foreign men who view them as nothing more than chattel property. In doing so they have unwittingly invited the destruction of their own freedom.

While I sit next to my daughter I wonder what the future will hold for her. I have no desire to see her disenfranchised but the reality is that many of her own kind have chosen a future where reason has been rejected and instead, traded for thirty pieces of silver and whatever makes them feel good. Unfortunately, a world without reason is a world without order which is a world without choice. A world without choice is a world of brute force. And that’s a man’s world.


Benevolence and democracy should have ushered in an era of truth and reason but instead, they ushered in an era of denial and wishful thinking. Thus, democracy’s beginning will also be its end. What came from force will return to it.

For those of you paying attention and who can see the contradictions and the resultant decay, pray. Pray that what comes afterward will once again be benevolent.


Yen Cross Fri, 11/24/2017 - 20:45 Permalink

 Denial certainly isn't a river that runs through Africa.  [the PBoC would know]  Enough fun and> jingo'isms.    Let's get short the euro, and the HKD. [not offshore yuan}  You didn't hear it here folks.

MoreFreedom MisterMousePotato Sat, 11/25/2017 - 14:38 Permalink

"democracy is not an inherently moral system"Marion's article has its flaws.  It's not that democracy is inherently immoral or moral.  Instead it's government that is immoral because it uses force against individuals: e.g. taking their money (via implied or real force) or harming people by fining, jailing or killing them.  But it's a necessary evil because many people are also evil.  It's what we let government do that dictates the extent of it's immorality.  Using government to defend us against foreign invaders and criminals who harm others, is good in that it limits the harm those people do (still it harms us in paying for it).  The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted among men to protect our lives, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness. The idea that government should care for people (welfare, Obamacare, redistribution of wealth) makes it evil in that instead or protecting us, it becomes an accomplice in the criminal activity of stealing from some for the benefit of others.  I'd almost prefer an all powerful beneveloent king that respects the purpose of government, except for the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I expect the king would soon use the government for his own benefit far beyond his needs.  The fact is, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.  But electing our leaders has proven to be a better method to keep government in check, than all the other alternatives.  Let's just hope we keep the federal government limited to dealing with foreign enemies and local government that violate our freedoms, while local governments can deal with other stuff such as utilities, roads and criminals.The best government, is the smallest we can make it, while still doing its job of protecting our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

In reply to by MisterMousePotato

MonetaryApostate TeamDepends Fri, 11/24/2017 - 20:56 Permalink

Dream on, with quadrillions of US Dollars in circulation, this country is finished, we are just seeing a delayed end, & that's why you see the kneeling at the anthem.  It's a statement, it's over.They not only wiped their butts with the constitution & bill of rights, they are making the digital police state reality by the day, & soon we will be cashless globally so they can force digital totaliariamism.My wife from Venezuela is calling the future of the US like a play book from Chavez's move towards socialism, she nailed it to the wall, just wait.

In reply to by TeamDepends

MonetaryApostate indygo55 Sat, 11/25/2017 - 00:13 Permalink

So you think UBI & Hyperinflation isn't coming? Take a good look around ya, America is full of South Americans, so keep talking down on us open minded critical thinkers, you'll see when they get Mike "Chavez" Pence to take the seat what happens next.Impeaching or offing Trump would be required...Something about those Kennedy files....

In reply to by indygo55

TeamDepends MonetaryApostate Sat, 11/25/2017 - 08:16 Permalink

So, open minded critcal thinker, you seem to support the assassination of the standing president. You down with that? America is full of Americans and illegal aliens. It is full of illegal aliens because of Barbara Spectre-type SJW brainwashed leftists who are hell-bent on destroying this country and its culture. What, exactly, are you saying? That the "South Americans" who are here (legally or not) should be handed the keys to the country for simply............breathing?

In reply to by MonetaryApostate

MonetaryApostate TeamDepends Sat, 11/25/2017 - 23:03 Permalink

I don't support an assasination of any president, I'm pointing you towards the likely outcome, based upon 40 years of studies, & I don't care if anyone believes me or I am wrong in my assessment, but learning to think different is not easy, though highly thought provocative none the less.  The comment could have been worded better, sorry for poor communications on my part.Though, I could give a rat's ass if the billionaire club started offing one another, it's not like they haven't done us wrong.

In reply to by TeamDepends

indygo55 MonetaryApostate Sat, 11/25/2017 - 08:28 Permalink

No I totally think those things are coming. I just don't think the population here in the US is going to react the same as Venesuela. The probability of a coup or some king of overthrow here is very different and way higher here then there. There are some very dedicated, armed, capable and loyal Americans here that believe in the rule of law and the constitution. That's all I saying. 

In reply to by MonetaryApostate

Let it Go indygo55 Sat, 11/25/2017 - 06:55 Permalink

It seems many of us are drawn to a good illusion and this proves true for most people in their daily life as well. In some ways, it could be said that our culture has become obsessed with avoiding what is real.We must remember that politicians and those in power tend to throw people under the bus rather than rise up and take responsibility for the problems they create. The article below looks at how we have grown to believe things are fine. http://The Allure Of Ilusions-Five Favorite Financial Myths.html

In reply to by indygo55

stacking12321 pynky01 Fri, 11/24/2017 - 23:11 Permalink

americans might survive, but they sure won't thrive - they are the irresponsible deadbeat who maxed out his credit cards so he could feel good for a whilebut the loanshark is coming a-callin and someone's getting a beat-downtime to face reality and realign living standards to america's actual productivity value, not the imagined one based on exorbitant privilege (world reserve currency and the petro-dollar, which are ending)

In reply to by pynky01

Miggy stacking12321 Fri, 11/24/2017 - 23:54 Permalink

Americans have the best work ethic in the world bar none but I guess it depends on who you listen to and hang out with. I know countless business owners who bust their rear end and make boat loads of money. It does not come from trees, these guys are working hard.Just take a look at some of the work week hours in Europe and the vacation time.As big of a country as we are there is the complete spectrum of situations. But to blanket Americans as lazy is just incorrect.

In reply to by stacking12321

HRClinton Miggy Sat, 11/25/2017 - 02:39 Permalink

"Americans have the best work ethic in the world bar none"Q1: Have you EVER been to Asia (Korea, China)? Q2: Are you referring to the ones who still have jobs, to burger flippers, government employees, or the 47% who don't pay Federal taxes?Sorry to trouble your Kool-aid world with facts and awkward FAQs.

In reply to by Miggy

CNONC HRClinton Sat, 11/25/2017 - 09:49 Permalink

Been everywhere.  There exists a class of men in the United States, a small but important group, that is without equal anywhere in the world.  You will find similar men in Europe, Russia, China, and a few other places, but the Americans are a cut above.  I do not suggest that these men represent the "average" American. (or Russian, or European, or Chinese) I have come to believe that all the value that is created and consumed in the United States is produced by as few as 10 million people.  All the rest consume far more than they produce.  This appears to apply throughout the world.  "Civilization" is nothing more than the method by which those who produce a surplus are enslaved to create political power for others. If one man can produce enough to supply 30 people, I need only expend the effort to enslave him in order to gain the cooperation of the other 30. 

In reply to by HRClinton

Miggy pynky01 Fri, 11/24/2017 - 23:48 Permalink

America is not a Democracy although it was debated (quite possibly in the Federalist papers but I have not read them in a while). When the country was founded "they" thought America as a straight democracy would be too difficult as large as the country is but of course with technology that is not correct today.As everyone knows we are a representative republic and right now the representatives are not representing the public, only the highest bidders and the most organized although President Trump is trying his best to change that.We all know who are representatives on the hill are representing and it has been written about forever.Can you imagine a straight up and down vote on the most important issues facing us today? This is impossible as it would give too much power to the people.

In reply to by pynky01

MisterMousePotato Miggy Sat, 11/25/2017 - 03:33 Permalink

Yes, but the author mentioned that democracy is neither good nor bad, in theory, but will reflect the judgments of the body politic, which, just like any individual, may be good or bad.Echoing Mr. Franklin's (IIRC) observation that the Constitution is adequate for the governance of a moral and religious people. Only.I don't know about you, but I don't see much evidence that Americans are a moral and religious people.

In reply to by Miggy

Reaper Fri, 11/24/2017 - 21:06 Permalink

Benevolence requires believing in an order instituted by God(s) or Nature.  A benevolent society benefits those who see themselves as possible future beneficiaries, but is unneeded by the contemporaneously strong.    Nature has bees who naturally defend to the death the hive.  Nature has strains of mankind, some or one of which will survive.

VWAndy Fri, 11/24/2017 - 21:09 Permalink

    Prolly be a good idea to do sunsets in place of the boob tube. At least when its nice outside. Thats real quality time both of you will really remember. ymmv  Nice artical  Thanks Francis Marion.

the French bitch Fri, 11/24/2017 - 21:35 Permalink

Fallacies:I'm a fiercely independent woman who agrees with you concerning a man's responsibility to his woman because I similarly am responsible for my man and will look after him.  I'm not looking for a daddy, nor does he want a mommy.Re: democracy. It is not the exercise of political power by the majority over the minority.  It is political power by a very small minority over the masses 

RationalLuddite the French bitch Fri, 11/24/2017 - 23:37 Permalink

You are right and wrong. Ofc democracy is a form of the majority imposing their will on the minority. By definition and by empirical reality this is so.  But an intransigent,  intolerant minority can impose their will on that very majority if that majority possess both apathy and lack of cultural confidence (among other things)…

In reply to by the French bitch

Drop-Hammer Fri, 11/24/2017 - 21:39 Permalink

Only Caucasians are capable of 'benevolence'.  Our benevolence should have never been wasted on non-Caucasians.  Regards political power/democracy/suffrage, women have it only because men granted it to them.  Whenever I hear of women pissing/moaning about us evil males, us evil white males in particular, I challenge any woman to go toe to toe with me while we are both holding a two-foot section of #18 rebar-- with Thunder-dome Rules.

OverTheHedge Drop-Hammer Sat, 11/25/2017 - 01:19 Permalink

This is something I have come across more than once in my life: women using their "equality" to gain far more than they could if they were male. As a man, you understand implicitly that there are consequences to your actions, and if you push another man too far, he WILL punch you in the face. Women, however, use their "equality" without any consideration that they might also get punched in the face, because they won't. No matter what they do.

I once had to explain to a nice lady who worked alongside me, that I was a fully emancipated, modern man, who fully embraced equality for women, and I would therefore treat her EXACTLY as I would treat a man, by punching her in the face. Of course, just having the conversation proved that I didn't treat her equally, because I would never have been put in the same position by a man, would never have had the conversation, and would have punched him long before we escalated to such a point.

Women in sales - nasty, manipulative, conniving, back-stabbing, evil harpies, and that's the nice ones.

In reply to by Drop-Hammer