Bureaucracy: A First-Order Evil

“Join the collective. Or else.”

Intelligence and Dysgenics showed that average IQs have made huge gains while general intelligence (g) has declined. Why worry about falling g? Physical and mental mutations are usually co-morbid.[1][2a] 84% of the human genome involves the brain[3], so a decrease in g means higher physical mutations (e.g. fewer alpha traits). Therefore, g predicts mutational load—something to worry about.

Lowering ability (g) while improving environments and raising specialized skills (IQ) leaves a population less intelligent, but more ‘capable’[4][8a]. It does so at a significant cost: the rise of bureaucracy.

“In every day terms; the academics of the year 2000 were the school teachers of 1900, the school teachers of the year 2000 would have been the factory workers (the average people) of 1900, the office workers and policemen of 2000 were the farm labourers of 1900, while the low level security guards and shop assistants of 2000 were probably in the workhouse, on the streets or dead in 1900.”[5a]

Bureaucracy is leadership by command hierarchy, rule following, and functional specialization. This is workableeven rationalwhen it utilizes individual decision making by qualified decision makers.[9] This is not practical with g declinewith most workers less intelligent than factory workers or farm laborers of 1900due to the huge demand for, and decreased supply of, qualified decision makers. In its place is mindless red tape, blind adherence to rules, and automation (e.g. computerization) that explicitly rejects individualism. Decisions are made by compromise, agreement, group think, and uniformity, especially by utilizing committees.[6]

Like the Parable of the Lifesaving Station, failure begins when the mission is lost. The parasitic propensity to expand defines modern bureaucracy, incorporating ever more of an organization’s structure into bureaucratic procedures. It becomes self-maintaining, disconnected from reality.

“Modern bureaucracies have simultaneously grown and spread in a positive feedback cycle; such that interlinking bureaucracies now constitute the major environmental feature of human society which affects organizational survival and reproduction. Individual bureaucracies must become useless parasites which ignore the ‘real-world’ in order to adapt to rapidly-changing ‘bureaucratic reality’.”[6]

What started as a way to efficiently organize decision making becomes a mechanism for producing enforced conformity and busywork. At its best, bureaucracy makes life difficult for those few who do the real work. More likely, bureaucracy cripples an organization and becomes a force for evil.

Bureaucracy is a first-order evil. It is the mechanism behind most societal evils. Everythingincluding feminism and rejection of religionis facilitated by bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is inherently evil, yet most people are so desensitized to bureaucracy and its evil that it must be explained:

“Why are there so many bad systems, organisation, and processes in the modern world? Why are governments so incompetent, inefficient, and often corrupt? Why are big companies and institutions so poor at innovation, so good at creating huge bureaucracies, and so bad at balancing factors such as profit and social responsibility?

We must establish that my claims against these organisations are true. That is difficult, because there is no valid basis for comparison, and no good objective way to measure good and bad attributes. But I think most people know through anecdotes, or just through their own personal opinions, that what I said is true, at least in the vast majority of cases.

I think it relates back to Dunbar’s Number.”

Organizations that do not rely on hierarchical leadership and delegation will fail when they hit the limitations of Dunbar’s Number. However, since there are not enough qualified decision makers, bureaucracy is inevitable. The larger an organization grows, the more leadership it theoretically needs to be effective, growing the organization further. This creates the demand for more when it inevitably fails. This is one way that bureaucracy self-feeds.

Even though IQ has peaked, there are hardly any geniuses anymore and innovation rates have fallen dramatically.[2c] Bureaucracy has successfully contributed to the elimination of excellence and motivation.[11] Nevertheless, despite the fall in intelligence and the growth in bureaucracy, society is still moving forward on momentum. It is unclear how long it can continue:

“Arguably this reversal has already happened in The West, and we are now living off capital – well embarked on a downslope of reduced societal efficiency which affects all nations (because the innovations and breakthroughs created by geniuses of European origin have usually spread to the rest of the world).”[5c]

Bureaucracy turns people into cogs of the machine, destroying creativity and genius. Those individuals who manage to be effective risk being pushed out or failing upwards to their level of incompetence (i.e the Peter Principle), further feeding the bureaucratic machine. In some cases, such as government bureaucracy, it can actually punish or destroy those individuals who don’t conform.


Consider a typical school made up of many interlocking bureaucracies: school and district administration, a system of tenure, teacher unionization, state educational standards, and so forth.

Students, by and large, are ‘taught to the test’. While programs exist to support kids who exceed or fall behind, these tend to be one-size-fits-all approaches. In the rare case where a school provides one-on-one support staff, it is a coin flip whether they’ll be qualified. Schools must follow their procedures, no matter what. They will literally sue you in court before deviating from bureaucratic script.

It is almost impossible to fire bad teachers. They can only be transferred to other positions or schools. Once a bad teacher is in the system, the bureaucracies ensure that they will stay, perhaps even be promoted due to their incompetence.

Schools must ensure that feminist sociopolitical goals are met: boys should not exceed girls, and girls must be given enhanced opportunities and rewards.

All of these things are actively harmful to the purported goal of educating children, a job that schools do quite poorly.[10]


Government is arguably the biggest, most powerful, and most obvious bureaucracy. The growth of government bureaucracy is roughly exponential. It is also negatively correlated with g. It is an unsurprising truism that the government does everything poorly, nonetheless the recent growth in government bureaucracy is astoundingly large. The impeachment hearings provide an excellent example of the insanity of government bureaucracies:

“The system can be described as a nonsensical bureaucratic run around, with gatekeepers of information at every step. State department officials are left with the claim that “they just work for the department,” and must follow those procedures.”

Democracy requires a highly intelligent population to work effectively.[5b] America was founded as humanity was approaching its peak level of intelligence. The Founding Fathers were able to understand deep philosophical concepts in order to produce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They had no idea that one day a large percentage of the voting population would be completely unable to understand why certain rights were essentialfreedom of speech, abhorrence of censorship, or the right to defend ourselves from tyranny. Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) presciently declared:

“Every nation gets the government it deserves.”

Or as H. L. Mencken put it:

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Bureaucracy is totalitarian and anti-democratic. Government and voters are steadily replacing democratic ideals with an anti-democratic, totalitarian, bureaucratic state. It isn’t that America is in late-stage capitalism, as some have suggested, but that we are just too dumb to have an effective democracy.

In the next part of the series, we’ll see how massive social changes combined with intelligence declines have served to dramatically change society itself in a very short time.

[1] “Sartorious N. (2013). Comorbidity of mental and physical diseases: a main challenge for medicine of the 21st century. Shanghai archives of psychiatry25(2), 68–69. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2013.02.002

[2] YouTube Videos

[a] Dutton, Edward (2019) “The Mutant Says in His Heart: There is No God
[b] Dutton, Edward (2019) “At Our Wits’ End I: The Rise and Fall of Western Intelligence
[c] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “Why Are We Getting Less Intelligent

[3] “Human brains share a consistent genetic blueprint and possess enormous biochemical complexity” Allen Institute for Brain Science (2012).

[4] ‘Capable’ refers to being able to do specialized work. Many of our professions require specialized mental skills that our ancestors would never had had to consider. As Flynn notes, moderns have a greater requirement for abstractions. This does not imply that the work is of high quality or creative.

[5] Dutton E, Charlton B (2016) The Genius Famine

[a] Chapter 12, section “Measuring the decline of intelligence”
[b] Chapter 13, section “Genius and the educational system”
[c] Chapter 12, section “Historical trends in the prevalence of genius”

[6] Charlton, Bruce G. (2010) “The cancer of bureaucracy: How it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything elseMed Hypotheses, 74(6):961-5. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.038

[7] Giuseppe, C. (2012) “Bureaucracy and medicine: an unholy marriage.Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 15(9):243–244. doi:10.4414/cvm.2012.01693

[8] Charlton BG (2013) “Not even trying: the corruption of real science

[a] “I suspect that overall human capability (leaving aside specific domains) reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75 – at the time of the Apollo moon landings – and has been declining ever since.”

[9] Hierarchical leadership and delegation is required to avoid the limitations of Dunbar’s Number.

[10] It’s well known that children perform better academically when they are separated by sex. Not only does the bureaucracy forbid this (due to forced inclusion) in favor of social interaction, but they are no longer even allowed to acknowledge that girls are girls and boys are boys.

[11] Everyone gets a trophy.

November’s Feminist Hero


As a proud male feminist, I have accepted the fact that my masculinity is something to be ashamed of, and that all my actions are irrelevant, given that all men are rapists.

Down below, Heidi nominates a woman named Brittany Pilkington, as this month’s feminist hero. What did our proud sister Brittany do? She exercised her “right to choose,” and retroactively aborted her three young sons, one after another.

Exchange Dead Sons Mother Charged

Screen Shot 2019-11-21 at 13.03.04

Why did our hero do the deed? Let’s hear her tell it…

Screen Shot 2019-11-21 at 13.07.11

The Hits Just Keep On A-Coming


Do not conflate “Kim” here with the last chick, who finally took the hint at some point yesterday, and quit responding to my endless flaking. This is a new Tinder slut, desperate to land a chump in time for Christmas morning.


For the record, every woman I string along has a number of common qualities. I am only fucking with women who have already divorced a good man and stolen his children. Not that this makes me any more noble, but I do have some standards.

Older dogs who socialize with us, in the 45-60 range, should consider setting up a phony profile (you can easily get a pic here) and join me in trolling the 20-something divorcée crowd. It’s fun, you know you want to, and they deserve it.

My Blog Lives On…

2234083Derek Ramsey’s important work on dysgenesis is now categorized separately from the rest of the nonsense on tap here. His articles can be pulled up and read as a series by using this link.

Gunner Q is hosting a critical analysis of Derek’s dysgenesis series at his blog. You can read his exegesis and various comments using this link.

Remember to show respect for the host if you enter another man’s lair, for such is a timeless tenet of patriarchy.

For three full years now, I’ve entered the holiday season convinced that I’m going to let my subscription lapse. It irks me to keep funding WordPress — even more now that their parent company has merged with the feminist Tumblr platform. Even so, Derek’s middlebrow articles give me an excuse to kick in my paltry contribution to our deadly enemies, in return for the privilege of using their own infrastructure to lampoon them.

Intelligence and Dysgenics


Mouse Utopia showed that removing hardship in mice populations led to genetic mutation buildup and eventual extinction. We will now examine human intelligence to look for evidence of genetic decline in human populations.

The g factor is a person’s real general intelligence. IQ tests attempt to measure g. We would like to estimate how g has changed over time by how IQ scores have changed. The Flynn effect is the large, sustained increase in IQ scores over time3 points per decade. This creates an apparent paradox: if g increased 30 points in the 20th century, then the average ancestor from the 1800s would have been borderline mentally retarded. Flynn and others attribute the increases to environmental causes: education, specialization, health, and other social improvements.[1][8a]

Examining low-complexity indicators of gbackward digit span test, simple reaction time, working memory tests, color discrimination, audio pitch discrimination, weight discrimination, 3D rotational measures, high order (hard to learn) vocabulary usage frequency, cranial (a)symmetry, and measures of creativityshows secular declines over time.[7][8c][8d] The Woodley effect (i.e. co-occurrence model) states that g has declined over time1.5 points per decadesimultaneously with the Flynn effect.[2][3][8c]

“To put this in perspective, 15 points would be approximately the difference in average IQ between a low level security guard (85) and a police constable (100), or between a high school science teacher (115) and a biology professor at an elite university (130). In other words, in terms of intelligence, the average Englishman from about 1880-1900 would be in roughly the top 15 per cent of the population in 2000 – and the difference would be even larger if we extrapolated back further towards about 1800 when the Industrial Revolution began to initiate massive demographic changes in the British population”[6a]

Environment is leveraging huge gains (+30 IQ points) that mask the genetic decline (-15 g points)[8c], but an Anti-Flynn effect is beginning. Meta-analysis shows secular IQ decline in 66 different observations from 13 different countries over 87 years and total sampling of 300,000 persons.[4] The decline is most visible among those of higher socioeconomic status[8b], where potential is tapped out.[13]

In simple terms, humanity got stupider as it got much better at leveraging innate intelligence and learned skills, but the overall gains have started to plateau or decline.


Prior to the Industrial Revolution, child mortality was fairly consistent at ~40%.[11] Mortality rates were highest among the poor, where disease, accidents, starvation, and poor living conditions resulted in very high mortality. In the middle class—the most intelligent group—high fertility rates and lower mortality rates led to a steady selection for intelligence.[6c][14] This changed in the mid-1800s in response to demographic and socioeconomic changes and declining child mortality. Selection pressure, driven by high mortality rates, ended as nearly all babies now survive to adulthood.[6d]

There are two primary drivers behind more than a century of general intelligence decline. The first is dysgenic breeding and the second is mutation accumulation.[12] Neither factor alone is sufficient to explain the secular decline in g.[6b]

Intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility. Those with low intelligence are breeding more than those with high intelligence. However, the Breeder’s Equation does not account for the magnitude of measured change because the most genetically fit reproduce not only less often, but also later in life (reflecting career-first feminism) Those with low g have a shorter gap between generations, effectively lapping those with high g—intensifying the dysgenic effect.[8c] This is illustrated in this humorous clip (H/T: chronoblip).

The only significant exception is a group with relatively high fertility that has good genetic fitness associated with health and prosperity: the religious. Unfortunately, this group has been experiencing significant declines, right alongside the decline in g.

Bad genes are being passed on much faster than good genes, the bad overwhelming the good. But even eight human generations is not enough time to account for the entire drop in g. The remainder comes from mutation accumulation:

…until about 1800 only the minority of people with (on average) the ‘best genes’ (i.e. the lowest mutation load) would be able to survive and reproduce; and among the great majority of the population only a very small proportion of their offspring (averaging much less than two, probably less than one, per woman) would survive to a healthy adulthood, reproduce and raise children of their own. In this context, which was for almost all of human history until about two hundred years ago; both new and inherited deleterious mutations were filtered-out, or purged, from the population every generation by this very harsh form of natural selection.[6c]

Many persons with deleterious mutations do not die, but go on to reproduce. Compounding this problem, social changes (reflecting career-first feminism) have increased the average age of parents. The older parents are at conception, the greater number of genetic mutations they will pass.[5] Not only do mutations not get purged, but they are added at higher than historical rates.

Evolutionary theory requires both natural selection and random mutations. Since mutations are almost never beneficial[15], selection is the only way to prevent increased mutational load.[16] Accordingly, absent major societal changes, the decline in g is expected to continue.[17]


Why worry about falling g, when we have those huge IQ gains? We live in a society where those leveraged IQ gains are essential to many professions. A significantly higher percentage of our population must work in more complex professions than could have ever been expected of our agrarian ancestors, yet our ancestors had much higher innate potential. Consider this timely tweet:


No one in 1850 (or even 1950) would have said something so inane as that slide. Heather asserts that those science teachers who cannot posit alternative hypotheses have a dangerous amount of power and should not be teaching it. But who else could do it? There are just not enough people to replace our leaders and teachers with those who have the requisite general intelligence. Our average teacher can do science (high IQ), but they can’t fully understand it (low general intelligence).

In the same vein, after universally recognizing the worth of the Bill of Rights, society is now debating the merits of its previously established concepts, such as free speech or the right to defend oneself from tyranny. In many ways we have vastly exceeded our ancestors, but in other ways, we are just…stupid.

The next part in the series will examine what happens when a population lowers ability (general intelligence) and improves environments and raises skills (high IQ).

[1] Dickens WT, Flynn JR (2001). “Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ paradox resolved”. Psychological Review. 108 (2): 346–369. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.346.

[2] Figueredo, AJ; Sarraff, M. (2018). “Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr“. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science: 1–9. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3838-2.

[3] Woodley, Michael A et al. “By their words ye shall know them: Evidence of genetic selection against general intelligence and concurrent environmental enrichment in vocabulary usage since the mid 19th century.” Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 361. 21 Apr. 2015, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00361

[4] Woodley of Menie, Michael A., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, Mateo, Fernandes, Heitor B. F., Figueredo, Aurelio-José. “What causes the anti-Flynn effect? A data synthesis and analysis of predictors.” Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, Vol 12(4), Oct 2018, 276-295

[5] Woodley, Michael A. “How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation.” Personality and Individual Differences vol 75 80-84. Oct. 2014, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.047

[6] Dutton E, Charlton B (2016) The Genius Famine

[a] Chapter 12, section “Measuring the decline of intelligence”
[b] Chapter 15: “What to do”
[c] Chapter 2, section “The evolution of higher intelligence”
[d] Chapter 12, section “High-IQ genes versus low-IQ genes”

[7] See: Deary et al, 2004 and Deary’s analysis of Action & Schroeder, 2001.

[8] YouTube Videos

[a] Flynn, James. (2013) “Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents
[b] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “The Scarr-Row Effect
[c] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “Why Are We Getting Less Intelligent
[d] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “Secular Declines in Colour Acuity

[11] Gapminder. “Sources: Child Morality

[12] Studies do not show a correlation between abortion and intelligence decline.

[13] Studies do not show a correlation between declining g and black and white IQ gaps.

[14] This selection is why almost all descendants of Western Europeans can trace their ancestry—by the 16th century—to the wealthy or aristocrats

[15] It is the claim of various proponents of Intelligent Design that beneficial mutations are nearly impossible to combine into macro-level improvements.

[16] Most mutations have no noticeable effect and are considered benign. However, mutations are not truly random. Previously mutated sites are more likely to experience mutations in the future, increasing the odds of a harmful change.

[17] This is not an argument in favor of eugenics. This would be pretty inconsistent considering that I have adopted three children with significant genetic abnormalities.

The Creepy Male Feminist


Some men foolishly believe that a marginal chance to tap some fat, smelly ass is worth the humiliation of publicly declaring your own allegiance to feminism. Take a lesson from old Bob, here. Standing up for feminists will not serve your interests.

Screen Shot 2019-11-17 at 22.09.06

Feminists hate men and want them ruined. Getting their attention will only make you a target.

Read and learn, boys…

The Problem With Male Feminists

Beware The Creepy Male Feminist

Seekers Of The Ring

Screen Shot 2019-11-11 at 16.12.12

I’ve taken to playing a game which is simultaneously fun and effective with the holiday hoez on the internet dating sites.

Her: 26, one kid, recently divorced after a 2 year marriage.

Me: y’r pal Boxer, hardcore misogynist.

Setting: text messaging, after matching on one of the silly phone apps.

I always ask the question what are you actually looking for within the first five minutes.


What she says she’s looking for is someone who could “start as friends” and “see where things go…” She lied. She says that she wants an LJBFrather than the regular sexual encounter that she pretended to want on the banging site.

What she’s actually looking for are a large group of men who endlessly chase her, in hopes that she will choose one or more of them. The manosphere will clue you in to this, and it’s true. Unfortunately, the manosphere will then immediately lie to you, and tell you that if you accept this lowly position, you will never, ever get that ass.

Back when I was a young and naïve lad, I took the offer to become a slut’s LJBF quite frequently. I almost always got some mediocre sex, but only after an endless series of encounters punctuated by lies, flaking, demands, wasting money, etc.

When I got clued in (thanks to AfOR and Roosh V.) I began nexting wimminz like this immediately. That changed recently, as you can see above.

What I’ve started doing is reflexively messing with these bitches, by calling their hand and telling them I’m looking for someone to marry. I could excuse this descent into dishonesty with a series of good for the goose rationalizations, but I won’t. I’ll just tell you that it amuses me to do so. It has the effect of flipping the script, as I see the thirsty bitch immediately take the bait and begin kissing my ass in an attempt to take her seriously.

Of course, as she drops ever more frequent and transparent hints about meeting in the real world, I drop ever more ambiguous hints about looking for a wife, and not a friend, and wishing her well in her search for a celibate groveler.