The Boys Are Coming Back

Speaking Softly And Wielding a Big Schtick

The current female dominance of American culture and society, seemingly a permanent feature now and in the future, has, almost without notice, begun to crumble. The pendulum always swings. History teaches that today’s Big Thing invariably becomes small and irrelevant tomorrow.

Everything cycles. The reason that has remained true throughout known history is that humans change. Change is the most effective survival strategy any organism has yet to come up with. Rapid change is necessary to ensure the survival of a species because the only way a species can effectively defend itself against inimical events is to change more rapidly and effectively than the mindless forces of brute nature that threaten it.

The (thoroughly discredited) theory of Darwinian Evolution won’t do it. Even if it worked as advertised, it would progress far too slowly to have much value against the sort of wide-spectrum annihilation nature can manage when it opens up a major can of whup-ass on your species. Ask a former king of the jungle, Tyrannosaurus Rex, about it. The thunder lizards were the most powerful and fearsome beasts ever to stride the earth. They held sway over the Cretaceous period for tens of millions of years, until nature threw them a change-up in the form of a six mile wide asteroid slamming into the Yucatan Peninsula.

The only dinosaurs to survive that event long term were…birds. Yes, your parakeet is, technically, a dinosaur.

Birds are feathered theropod dinosaurs and constitute the only known living dinosaurs. Likewise, birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians. Birds are descendants of the primitive avialans (whose members include Archaeopteryx) which first appeared during the Late Jurassic. According to recent estimates, modern birds (Neornithes) evolved in the Late Cretaceous and diversified dramatically around the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago, which killed off the pterosaurs and all non-avian dinosaurs.[7]

When an asteroid hit Earth 66 million years ago, only those feathered maniraptorans that had downsized to about 1 kilogram or so—the birds—were able to survive, probably because their small size allowed them to adapt more easily to changing conditions, the team concludes online today in PLOS Biology. The researchers argue that being small made it easier for maniraptorans to adapt to a wider variety of habitats, whereas the rest of the dinosaurs, encumbered by their huge bodies and enormous food requirements, simply didn't make it.

Our culture and its various societies are dominated today by the equivalent of those ancient thunder lizards, cartels of Karens, mean girls, boss ladies, and every other sort of female dominatrix imaginable, controlling almost all the levers of our lives, secure in the conviction of their utter impregnability.

The foot soldiers of Marxist Rudi Dutschke’s Long March Through the Institutions were mostly women, especially women of a bureaucratic frame of mind, and as they filled almost every important niche in the faceless institutional swarms that control us today, they relegated boys and men to the role of The Inferior, while at the same time managing to ignore that the generals who led them were mostly men, from Dutschke himself to Bill Ayers, to George Soros, and even handsome, “presentable” boy-men like Barack Obama, an archetypical LINOtype (Leader In Name Only), presented as a tasty nibble of eye candy to a feminized culture growing ever more barren and hidebound.

I have previously, and will continue to refer to Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracies because it is the best lens through which to understand the nature of the world the Global West lives in today. Here it is again:

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

 First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

Women seem to have a particular affinity for, and innate understanding of, the methods, rhythms, and arcane intricacies of bureaucratic culture, especially its lower and more anonymous strata. One can speculate why this might be. My own hunch is that the overall nature of bureaucracies appeals to the female affinity for matters of home and hearth, in which they see themselves as integral, as opposed to traditional masculine roles as defender of, and provider to, home and hearth.

This might sound wacky, but consider: the ultimate leaders of bureaucratic structures, whether male or female, are rarely of the bureaucracy, (and hence only peripherally subject to Pournelle’s Iron Law), but rather use the bureaucracy as their primary tool in the advancement of their own aims. Perversely, this can lead to a lot of tension between ultimate leadership and bureaucratic bodies, which can have very different goals and motivations. As previously noted, mature bureaucracies are motivated by the survival of the bureaucracy as an organism, and not by any stated motivating mission nominally ascribed to them.

Top leadership, on the other hand, may not be nearly as possessed by a vision of the survival of the bureaucratic organism as their ultimate motivator. By virtue of their leadership position, they must answer to power centers exogenous to the bureaucracy itself, and further, may be driven by personal objectives equally foreign to the goals of the bureaucratic organism over which they preside.

A good example of this phenomenon would be the experience of the Donald J. Trump administration, which experienced a near-universal rebellion from “the Deep State,” which was merely a catch-all term used to designate the “blob of all bureaucracies smushed together into a single meta-organism.”

Nor did it seem to matter who or what sort of leaders Trump imposed on these bureaucracies. They remained in a state of rebellion and successfully resisted his efforts to control them. In essence, Trump came to impose change, (“Drain The Swamp”) but organisms correctly understand change as a threat to their survival, and react accordingly. In the end they successfully expelled him from the Deep State metabody as any organism would expel a disease. Trump left, and they remained, unchanged.

It seems counter-intuitive that women should be a demographic minority (44% to 56%) in the federal government workforce, and even less represented in the higher executive positions (38% to 62%), and yet still exert such a powerful influence on the actions of the organism itself. As an aside, note that the second, more important ratio is the primary Fibonacci Ratio, so important in so many different areas from DNA to architecture to the organization and structure of our universe itself that it is also known as The Golden Mean. Its presence in the sexual demographics of the federal bureaucracy may be coincidence - it often shows up in any examination of groups of very large numbers - but it may not, either. This is the most powerful relationship in all of nature, and both sides of it are equally important. In other words, it is as likely that the 38% of women might control the entire organism as it is that the 62% of men would do so.

A lot would depend on what the real levers of power and control are in a bureaucracy, and which group has positioned itself most closely to them. So let’s take another look at Pournelle’s Iron Law.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

So which segments of bureaucratic organisms “write the rules, and control promotions?” Think of “segments” as the various organs of the bureaucratic body as a whole.

The rules get written in a collaboration between Human Resources and Legal, with HR predominating in the process. Promotions, except at the very top, are generally the purview of HR. The “file,” as in the dreaded “note to your file,” is maintained by the HR department. Your supervisor might want to give you a promotion, for instance, but she will have to “run it by HR first.” And HR will tell her whether she can do so. Or not. This is real power.

Legal departments are currently about 40% women, though the latest data on new legal hires indicate that 50% is the current goal.

As for Human Resources Departments, arguably the organ most influential on the makeup of any bureaucratic body, we find a rather astounding statistic.

Employment and salary information for the Human Resources workforce: Human resources workers in 2022 was 948,951 people, of which 73.5% were women and 26.5% were men.

In other words, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the bureaucratic world. This is the single most important and powerful mechanism by which the feminization of American society and culture has been achieved. It turns out that the “Long March Through the Institutions” was really the “Long March Through the Human Resources Departments.”

How this occurred is a fascinating story in itself, but will have to wait for a future essay. Hint: it was the result of an unwitting act of suicide committed by male executives.

Fast forward to the current parlous state of boys, men, and especially the very concept of masculinity in today’s western culture. In a word, the situation is dire…or at least it appears to be. This has been making the rounds on social media, and while incomplete, it is certainly indicative of the overall plight of American boys and men today.

Given the stranglehold on the levers of real power in the western world women hold, and the consequent deliberate deracination of western males from their own culture and society, what on earth would lead me to contend that:

The current female dominance of American culture and society, seemingly a permanent feature now and in the future, has, almost without notice, begun to crumble.

It has to do with my belief that bureaucracies are organisms with their own cycles of birth, life, and death, and as such, from the moment of creation, carry within them the seeds of their own destruction. In this case, this seed is that they are created in the likeness of, and controlled by, the women in the HR department.

Men and women are different. I don’t care whether you like that reality or not, it is a fact, and facts don’t give a fark about your feelings. From the most basic level of DNA to the most ethereal realms of needs and wants, hopes and dreams, values of good and evil, men and women are basically, irretrievably, unchangeably different from each other.

Women who previously found the structures of bureaucratic organisms intuitive and congenial, (Remember “feminine intuition?” It’s a thing.) are discovering that their own innate natures compel them to destroy those bureaucracies. Oh, not deliberately, or even knowingly, but the results are terminal just the same, and becoming more so with every passing day.

Let’s return once again to Pournelle’s Iron Law.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself…It [they] will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

What Pournelle didn’t mention was who “those dedicated to the organization itself” would be, nor did he specify why women would be dedicated to these organizations as discrete organisms, rather than to the nominal reasons these bureaucratic bodies were created in the first place.

I can’t prove it, but I think it has to do with the resemblance of bureaucracies to families, and the familiarity women seem to intuitively and innately enjoy when it comes to them.

Little girls play with baby dolls. Little boys play with guns. It has been thus for all of human history, because the difference is not conscious, it is foreordained by the spirals of DNA in our chromosomes. Little girls grow up to give birth and raise families. Little boys grow up to defend and support them, with violence if necessary - and it has been necessary for most of humanity’s existence.

All of this is in service to one over-arching goal: to produce a new host suitable for carrying one set of genes into the future. Yes, everything about humanity is merely a side effect of genes reproducing themselves into new hosts. The essential differences between human males and females are baked into a genetic cake with DNA icing millions of years old, and not amenable to change even by the most ardently desirous women wishing such things were other than they actually are.

Unfortunately it turns out that while there are apparent similarities between bureaucracies and family units, apparency is not identity, and what works with human family units can and generally will demonstrate long-term lethality when applied to bureaucratic organizations. Elsewhere I’ve discussed the “competency crisis,” but neglected to mention that a principle factor is the inability of bureaucracies to effectively deal with complexity because bureaucracies inevitably become bloated, slow, sclerotic, and stupid once they vanquish, and banish, the original motivations for their existence and become entirely concerned only with their own sterile and meaningless survival.

So why does a female affinity for bureaucratic structures based on resemblance to human family life have such a lethal effect? Well, first, women place family at the center of their lives, the primary and most important element of their existence. A man will sacrifice his own life to protect his family. A woman will sacrifice her man to protect her family. There are exceptions, of course, but as a horseback explanation it works.

Why? Because a woman views herself as inextricable from the family that sprang from her loins. The children that she nurtures come out into the world from inside her, and are intimate extensions of her own being in ways no man will ever fully understand. Men, on the other hand, view their families as separate from themselves, entities to be protected and defended, (at least until the offspring are capable of passing on their own set of genes, which from a gene’s point of view is the purpose of the whole exercise anyway). Beyond that, his duty is done.

Males are genetically predisposed to spread their genes widely, so as to increase the chances of seeing them replicated. Women are genetically predisposed to ensure the survival of their children to an age where they can reproduce their genetic pattern. One is a lifelong dedication, the other a process involving a few pleasant moments until the all-important packet of genes is transferred from one host to another.

Of course this is not a complete explanation. Men can and do play a necessary and integral role in the life of their family and offspring, but it will never be as deep and all-encompassing as the role destined for women to play. Again, consider the needs of the gene. For a man, a single squirt is sufficient. For a woman, a commitment of many years is required.

For a man, there are always other fish in the sea. For a woman, one man who protects and defends may be all that she gets. The priorities, like the sexes, are different.

A woman who has transferred her priorities to a bureaucratic organism rather than a familial entity will naturally regard the survival of that organism as far more important than any purpose imposed on it decades in the past. That bureaucratic “family” will be crucial to her being - indeed, a part of it - in a way that no originator, (probably a man) could ever be.

And so Kimberly Cheatle regards the inner life of the Secret Service as considerably more important than protecting a man, Donald Trump, from another man, Thomas Crooks, (…these names — God has to be a jokester.) and so the bureaucracy fails its most basic test of competency. It has become incompetent at carrying out the task for which it was created. If that continues, or, as is likely, grows even worse, the organization itself will collapse, destroyed either from the inside, or the outside.

Which is why I say the boys are coming back to town. Because the girls are destroying the bureaucratic tools they used to evict the boys in the first place, and to keep them out afterwards.

There is a flip side to that coin, of course. Things change. The pendulum swings. Essential natures reassert themselves.

Little girls play with baby dolls. Little boys play with guns.

Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

— Mao Zedong

Women have been fighting that truism for millennia, and despite their best efforts, losing. And that will also be the subject of a future essay, this one featuring Nick Fuentes. Should be fun.