Tuesday, November 15, 2011


The word for today is "Bureaugamy."

You won't find this word in any dictionary. I picked up a couple of weeks ago from some commenter at some manosphere website. I've since forgotten who wrote it where (if someone points it out here, I'll edit this post and attribute it to it's orginator -- I think it may have been Zed over at Dalrocks...I'm not sure.)

The word is used to describe the modern cultural practice in which a women essentially mates with the State welfare bureaucracy to provide for her children, since she does not have a man fulfilling the role of provider for her offspring.

Great word. What else is there to say about it?

Until now, not much else...which is why I didn't bother trying to write about it after I'd already forgotten who I first heard it from in the first place.

But an article over at LewRockwell.com that I was reading with my morning coffee, made the word come to my mind once again. The article dealt with the result of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against the TSA for violating his Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizure. The article made a salient point that helps to clarify the big picture of the how and why we are going through so much cultural upheaval, economic distress and an ever expanding leviathan police state - and it's certainly related to the concept of Bureaugamy.

Becky Akers writes in Ventura's Venture Against the TSA:

He called it the "The Fascist States of America" and thrilled patriots everywhere when he promised, "I will never stand for a national anthem again. I will turn my back and I will raise a fist" after "a U.S. District Judge dismissed [his] lawsuit against full-body scanners at airports" on a technicality.

In that suit, "Governor Jesse Ventura, a/k/a James G. Janos … [sought] a declaration that the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and DHS [Department of Homeland Security, the TSA’s über-bureaucracy] have violated Ventura’s Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to airport security searches."

Mr. Ventura added, "It’s really sad … [The judge] claimed her court didn’t have jurisdiction. But this is a constitutional question…"

Actually, it isn’t – at least to Our Rulers. And not just because they’re evil tyrants who spit on the Constitution. They are and they do, but what Mr. Ventura bumped up against is monstrously worse, something far more dangerous, entrenched, and systemic. Yet it remains so incognito and unsuspected that our hero might want to investigate it for his series, "Conspiracy Theory," on TruTV.

The culprit is a totalitarian nightmare known as "administrative law." And when we victims assume the Constitution reigns supreme, Our Rulers laugh: they legally (even if unconstitutionally) replaced it about a century ago with administrative law.

You’re undoubtedly more familiar with "administrative law" by its acronyms: IRS, BATF, DHS, DEA, SEC, FDA, FCC, FAA, TSA…in other words, bureaucrats.

Light bulb moment! This Judges rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit ripped back the curtain to reveal the beast behind it, pulling the levers of the machine that has ripped the Constitution to shreds and became the primary impetus in forging our Brave New World Order dystopia.

The bureaucracy of "administrative law" is the actual law of the land! By invoking administrative law, the Government has effected an end run around Constitutional law. This is why we are all in some way or another, in a bureaugamous relationship with our Government, whether we want to be or not.

Still not sure how this works?

Aker's explains:

..."administrative law contains all the statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations that govern [bureaucracies]. It is the body of law created by administrative agencies to implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions," says West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Astounding, isn’t it? Agencies write the laws that empower them to write laws. They set the rules of the game they play against us, enforce those rules, and judge us when we violate them in "administrative hearings." Meanwhile, a single agency in a day can churn out more laws – euphemized as "regulations" – than Congress can all year.

Do you get it now?

This is precisely how so many citizens Constitutional rights are regularly ignored and blatantly violated by the various Bureaucratic Agencies who truly rule our land with an iron fist and unreasonable and unflinching cruelty.

The bureaucratic agencies under "administrative law" jurisdiction are the literal tentacles of the leviathan police state deliberately violating our rights and our freedoms and turning the USA from the land of the free and home of the brave, into the land of the fee and home of the slaves.

So where do these agencies derive their powers from? Most of these bureaucracies have their powers delegated to them by Congress. And therein lies the rub: Congress is specifically prohibited from delegating it's powers to a third party entity.

US Constitution, Article 1, sec. 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

How to get around this Constitutional restriction? Easy, set up a Bureaucratic agency, who than makes and enforces regulations instead of legislating laws. The names are changed, but in practice they are the same. In fact, regulations now carry more weight than most laws passed the old Constitutional way via legislative deliberation!

The rejection of Jesse Ventura's lawsuit claiming the TSA violated his Constitutional rights clearly shows we the sheeple where the true power is being wielded in this country. The precedence is set.

Administrative Law of the Bureaucratic Agencies trumps the Constitutional Law of the individual citizenry.

Aker's concludes:

What would have happened had the court heard Mr. Ventura’s case? The same thing that has happened in other, similar ones: it would have ruled in the TSA’s favor, implicitly relying on Congress’ delegation of power it never had – power that is virtually limitless under the administrative regime. The TSA can do as it pleases, providing it asserts such criminality helps it carry out Congress’ mandate to "protect" transportation – and its perverts take care to constantly prattle just that preposterous justification.

So long as we sue the TSA – or any bureaucracy – for violating our Constitutional freedoms, courts will rule against us and smirk while they do. The remedy for administrative law’s totalitarianism lies in abolishing bureaucracies, not pleading with Our Rulers to defend us from them, pretty please.

There you have it. Bureaucratic violations of Constitutional rights are based on the stated agency's justifications for some form of so-called safety and security on some person or entities behalf. This holds true across the entire spectrum of bureaucracy and the administrative regime that truly rules the country.

If bureaugamy is the marriage of citizen to the bureaucratic state (like the single mother relying on the State to redistribute taxes to provide for her Fatherless household), than what we really have is an arranged marriage shotgun wedding. We had no choice, and we had to say "I do" with the business end of a firearm wielded by a uniformed representative of the Bureaucratic State at our back.

If only we could use divorce to destroy the institution of Bureaugamy as surely as the Bureaucrats used it to destroy the institution of Monogamy.


Anonymous said...

This is a bunch of wailing over nothing; all he needs to do is refile in the appropriate Circuit Court.

Art III, § 1: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

This is understood to mean that Congress gets to decide on what subjects inferior federal courts may rule. Here, Congress has decided (at 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a)) to allow challenges to orders issued by the Secretary of Transportation to only be heard by: 1) The Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, or 2) the court of appeals in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business.

The judge's decision is a clear application of constitutional and statutory (not administrative) law.

Booch Paradise said...

Whether or not the point applies in Ventura's case is aside from the point. The fact is that federal agencies do wield a great deal of power and are for the most part completely unaccountable to the voters. I've long thought that we need a constitutional amendment that will prohibit congress from delegating authority to unelected agents. This would end a lot of the abuses of power, including the Fed, and would substantially increase the work load for our congress men which you would hope would have the effect of weeding out some of the really bad ones.

Aurini said...

Don't know if you read Thomas Ball's entire letter, but this is precisely what he describes with the family court system; there's the first set of books, the ones you learn about, the ones based upon the constitution, and generally making sense (or at least, in the cases of prohibition, being clear); then there's the second set of books, the REAL set - the ones that include primary aggressor laws, that dictate policies and procedures, that decide how and when automaton cops will enforce the laws. These laws are written by anonymous eggheads, never reviewed, or even advertised to the citizenry, and most don't find oout about them until they're prosecuted under them.

DaveD said...

When a government has a post called "the Regulation Czar", its hard to argue that we're still free and the Constitution has any meaning left.

For the record, Cass Sunstein is the Czar's name.

Keoni Galt said...

This is a bunch of wailing over nothing; all he needs to do is refile in the appropriate Circuit Court.

I'm sure that would work swimmingly!

Carnivore said...

That's why it doesn't matter if tweedle-dee or tweedle-dumb is elected. The adminocrats remain. Plus, they form a nice voting block to ensure their jobs continue with good pay and padded pensions.

ElectricAngel said...

There's really only one hope. A constitutional convention, called by the states, can propose an "amendment" that repeals the constitution and obliterates the Federal Government. That, or bankruptcy that makes it safe to ignore an impotent Federal State.

Question: Would Hawaii be a "state" under the previous confederational government, the Articles of Confederation?

Anonymous said...

This is a bunch of wailing over nothing; all he needs to do is refile in the appropriate Circuit Court.

Been there, done that. Random drug testing of airline employees in sensitive positions. Oh yes, you all said "but I don't want a pilot or mechanic on drugs...protect us." And there it begins. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case which clearly violates the 4th amend. to the constitution. If I recall from 1992, " the protection of the public outweighs the admitted violation for a select group of sensitive employees." And a great majority of you reading this today would not disagree.
And now you protest the TSA. First they came for.....
Good luck frightened ones.

Solution for balding said...

nice blog...

An Unmarried Man said...

Let us not forget one of the more invasive extra-Constitutional entities out there which darkens nearly all our doorways. Our state DMV's. They are frightening, Kafkaesque red-tape goblins who answer to no law.

The DMV can and does consider past infractions which the judicial courts threw out for a multitude of constitutional reasons.

11:26am anonymous said...

The point I was trying to make was that the challenge here can go forward. When it's presented, because it's a constitutional claim, Ventura can easily get substantive review of the claim. If it was a claim that the TSA didn't have the power to promulgate the policy under a statute, Ventura would struggle to get substantive review because of Chevron deference (deferring to agencies so long as their interpretations are "permissible"). That isn't the case here, though.

The reason he would almost certainly lose is that our courts have perverted the meaning of the Constitution by reading in a power of the federal government to violate individual rights so long as sufficiently important interest are served. This is where I pin the blame, rather than on the nature of the administrative state.

Greg said...

This website suggests the term was coined by Lionel Tiger.


This theme culminates in what Lionel Tiger (professor of anthropology at Rutgers) terms ``bureaugamy'', in which women embrace the state as protector, provider, and head of household. Bureaugamy is a hybrid of three components: the insatiable female appetite for security, the institution of unrestrained universal democracy, and Hegel's vaunted bureaucracy, whose agents - in order to obtain for themselves resources and importance - orchestrate the extortive predation of resources from producers, the bribing of constituencies with those resources, and the protection of constituencies from predation.

Keoni Galt said...

Thanks Greg.

Anon - Ok, good point. The administrative state is dumb. It's designed that way on purpose. That way, you have bureaucrats who "just follow orders" without thinking or trying to use their own common sense.

This is how law enforcement officers, who swear to uphold the Constitution, follow the agency rules that regularly violate the Constitution.

peternolan9 said...

good word...good article...absolutely correct. Well done.

peternolan9 said...

"The administrative state is dumb."

Actually it is very smart. It uses the sheeple as their own sheep dogs and locks everyone into the matrix.

A good example? A cop will go to jail if he does not pay his income taxes. The IRS controls the cops... ;-)

The whole control grid makes a great deal of sense...it is a work of art. A great intellect built this control grid. I am very impressed...and as aldus huxley said people could be made to love their servitude...people actually DEFEND their slavery when it is pointed out to them.

So I am no longer trying to educate men...you saw how long I did that on spearhead to the refusal of the assembled sheeple men to listen.

We are building the future. The men who come late will be charged heftily for the privilege of joining late.

mmaier2112 said...

"This is a bunch of wailing over nothing; all he needs to do is refile in the appropriate Circuit Court."

I do believe that Jesse Ventura had stated publicly that the bastard judge waited to rule on this case until after the statute of limitations had passed by.

Which should be an impeachable offense all by its lonesome.

11:26 am anonymous said...

It doesn't matter when judgment is entered—it matters when the suit is filed.

This is why I posted in the first place. If you express your ideas on legal topics without knowing what you are talking about while acting with enough confidence to call this judge a "bastard," you make people worth convincing ignore your ideas.

It's hard enough for me to persuade people of some basic "red pill" notions; it only gets harder if other people associate them with people who spout nonsense.

Darayvus said...

Excellent Douglas Adams / interactive-fiction reference, by the way. I lol'ed.

If you're still into ye olde text adventures, the IFComp 2011 should be wrapping up shortly . . .

Deansdale said...

Hey Keoni, would you please consider writing an article somewhere along the lines of "top 10 things you can do to improve your marriage"?
I plan on asking the same from Dalrock and Athol Kay, and then combine all the material into the most important blogpost ever :D I reckon you guys have the best advice out there :)
If we could work together we could actually change the world. Or at least I could live in delusion :)

Aaron said...

I wrote up some amendment ideas. One of them strengthens the 10th amendment. Take a look:

A Constitutional Amendment to strengthen the Tenth Amendment:
1.The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is amended to read:

"The powers not enumerated in the Constitution are prohibited to the United States, and reserved to the States and to the People;

The States and the People shall always have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Federal laws, rules and regulations."

PUA Guru Out of Closet! said...

Speaking of "gamy"...

The latest news to rock the PUA world and take game to the next level.

David De Angelo aka Eben Pagan, CEO of DoubleYourDating and the singlemost financially successful PUA guru in the history of game, has simultaneously come out as bi-sexual AND married a physically unattractive bi-sexual Caribbean woman who happens to look like him!


Eben’s “coming out party in NYC” photo is the 7th one down on the first row here;


The couple will have an open, polyamorous marriage;


As espoused in their “co-created positive wedding affirmations” in this video: