Betty Crocker Feminism

If you Google "Betty Crocker Feminism" you will not find one writer who puts this sans-culottes movement in the Marxist mainstream of Feminism. "Better Crocker Feminism", as I understand it, is decidedly anti-Marxist and anti-internationalist. It is, I think, a firebrand populist movement (populist in the sense that it is based on "popping off" the billionaires etc.) in that it does not favour bloody revolution in which millions (mostly middle class) people die -- but rather a much more modest but highly focused beam of killing that concentrates on the upper 200,000 of the planet. It also differs from revolutionary Marxism and Feminism in that it does not have a "progressive vanguard" of dedicated revolutionaries directing its primary policy. There is not BCF Party or core of revolutionaries. Rather, if I understand the main idea of the movement correctly (see below for quotations of BCF writers), the plan is that the idea of what must be done and why is so simple that no training comparable to the Marxists training in dialectical materialism and the labour theory of value or Marxist sociology is necessary -- everyone simply agrees to the rightness of the plan that everyone become a mole assassin ready and willing to kill the first billionaire banker or media magnate or speculator they can get their hands on until the ruling elite determine it their interest to un-rig the world economy they have rigged to prosper themselves and beggar everyone else. I don't pretend to understand the feminine mind, but I think the idea is that women can change the world as revolutionaries simply by killing the ruling class until the ruling class themselves agree to the rearrangement of things to benefit everyone -- rearranging that the bankers themselves will do-- to save their own skins -- break up their own monopoly of money and redistribute their ill-gotten gains which they hold in the form of vast land holdings, IOU's and monopoly corporation stock -- even, as I understand the doctrine, end they system that gives such large profits to those who instigate wars etc. Certainly this is a horrible feminist idea which every man must oppose with every fibre of his moral -- I know I do. But certainly we should look into this unconscionable agendum of focused plutocracide further so we will at least understand what is happening when billionaires for the first time in history start being murdered at a very fast rate. (Heaven forbid! 

I'm not sure it was Eleanor Flexner who said that the best way to rid the human race of exploitation is to have general acceptance of the idea that it is right and proper to kill anyone with total wealth in excess of $200,000,000 or with lands exceeding a certain modest acreage in every country of the earth. Flexner, but I don't think it was her, said that poverty in most of the world is directly caused by large landholdings -- big estates of ruling elites. That is why Mexico has a flood of dispossessed seeking escape to the US -- this is why urban areas are so poor and overcrowded and wages are so low. Think of the huge estates of England and the starving dying mass of people in East End London in the time of Dickens. Look at South America and the stupendous land holdings of the Rockefellers and other international bankers. Flexner, I am certain it was not her, said that these landowners must simply be shot or knocked on the head with an axe on sight and not only that, whoever manages their landholdings for them must get the same treatment. I only bring up this quaint idea because in trying to think of who said it I was reminded of another idea that I wonder if people are thinking about.

Eleanor Smeal - I'm sure it wasn’t Gloria Steinem or Jane Fonda - wrote some interesting things. I don't think those most familiar with her work would place the following passage among her many writings for the Commission for Responsive Democracy:

From pages 6 and 7:

  "We simply have to kill the rentiers (those living on interest and rent) who have sequestered the world's wealth to themselves. It is the only solution to the basic problem women and others face today. The monopolists of the world's wealth justify their having the wealth by their economics, more specifically by their insistence that people breed like rabbits and that if The Masses were given money and land and leisure they would just fuck more and increase the population until their new land was just as teaming with poverty and stench as before. This of course is a horrendous lie. As disposable incomes not stolen in taxes, rents and monopoly pricing increases, birth-rates decrease, standards of living increase, hovel surrounded by bare dirt become gardens, children learn to play musical instruments and get braces and learn poetry and speak well and think about what they would like to accomplish in the future etc.

"It is not the means of living that are scarce. In fact the means of providing for mankind have far outstripped population growth. The scarcity that pinches the human race today stems not from population pushing against limited means of production in food, clothing, housing, sanitation, landscaping, education, art, culture. Rather, the scarcity stems from a criminal class that has gotten control of the money and credit system and have used it to take land and charge monopoly prices for production and offer only monopsony wages to labour -- creating boom times where they lend easy money and following those booms with bust time in which they tighten the money supply so that no one has money to make loan payments and the peoples efforts all come to nought and are turned over to the banks in bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings. The fact is that if there was not this monopoly of money and credit by the criminal elites there would be no poverty -- there would be plenty for all and with a very short work week -- under 30 hours.

"So what is the solution? The rich who have taken the worlds wealth (in land and IOUs and monopoly corporation stock) argue that the poor masses that they have displaced are the problem -- they are the excess eaters who must be killed off in wars, famine, plague, economic depression, revolution etc. which the super rich are all too happy to arrange for the good of the planet. They call it "sustainable" growth -- but they mean mass murder and starvation wages. They are, of course, wrong. Not entirely wrong. Just working from the wrong end.

"Here is the principle. When I was attempting to free computer memory with the thousands of letters that have been sent to me over the years -- many of which, scattered among the unimportant ones, I want to keep -- I discovered the right way to do it. Simply click to arrange the posts by "size" and start eliminating the big ones -- that is the best way to free up space fast. The same is true with "eaters" -- a Rothschild with hundreds of thousands of acres in Latin America can be killed and that instantly benefits hundreds of thousands of people who then go to settle that choice land. People will leave the big cities to take that land. They will grow their own sustenance as peasants which will put a floor on poverty in the country. When the cities don't offer a wage of a certain level -- the people can go back to the land -- former Rothschild or Rockefeller or Bush land etc. and produce their own food supply as peasants on the land -- becoming conservative productive virtuous people with a stake in life. All from killing just a few billionaires.

"It is not only the redistribution of land that will save womankind (and everyone else too); but the redistribution of the great fortunes through breaking up corporations and holding companies; and the limiting of great fortunes to perhaps a few hundred million or so -- super wealth tax -- not income tax -- we should not tax income, which is taxing (punishing penalizing) human productivity and creativity. No women are not so dumb as to think that redistribution of off the stock and IOU holdings of the rich will feed everyone -- no, but it is part of something bigger and more fundamental -- we must take the monopoly of money and credit out of the hands of the financiers -- by simply killing them until they agree to our policy. They have made us debt slaves because with their monopoly of money and credit they have gotten control of media (monopolizing the flow and determining the content of the media that informs The Masses) and thus of the politicians. The secret is not to take their golden eggs so much as to take the magic goose that lays them -- to take from them the monopoly of credit creation which is centralized in their hands. We simply start killing them and their families and their body guards and their body guard's families until they decide that they don't want to monopolize credit on this planet any more." (Ibid.)

  

Now the name Betty Crocker is familiar to me -- I remember seeing her on TV long ago -- although my impression is that this was not a real person. Some kind of cover-up is going on here. I am prepared to state that there is no feminist radical named "Betty Crocker" behind the "Betty Crocker Feminist Movement." I think this is a case of stolen identity and that that fact in itself shows what despicable people we are dealing with here. One would think that if the promoters of this movement were honest and moral people they would change the name so as not to confuse this diabolical scheme with any innocent parties -- call it the "Let Ten Million Blossoms Bloom" movement or something like that. But of course it is none of my business what a group of wild feminists do, is it? But as has often been said -- and this might have been Mary Inman's thinking too -- it is not personalities, but ideas that matter, ideas and a simple program that is easy to carry out. If I'm not mistaken, Chinese Betty Crocker Feminist, Suzie Wong (not the daughter of the woman who married William Holden) has written about "asymmetrical warfare" in regard to the BCF program (Suzie calls it a "universal procedure") that everyone understands that the rich are behind all the diabolism in the world because, up to now, they have been rich enough to get away with it -- rich enough to spend trillions on controlling what everyone reads and hears on radio and watches on TV and computer screens and hears in lectures etc. But that with "Better Crocker Feminist Thought", as Suzie calls it, if it really was Suzie, requires only that some woman (or other person) get near enough to a billionaire to dash his brains out with whatever hard and hefty but portable object is handy at the moment -- one need not tell anyone or ask permission of anyone to perform this "service" for humanity. But Suzie adds one more step to the "pinpoint focus" of reform-eliciting executions -- who would have anyone who arrests or prosecutes a BCF "liberator" to come under the BC curse -- them and their families. The rotten Ms. Wong even goes so far as to suggest that body guards and the families of body guards should also be targeted -- so that they can be murdered by almost anyone at almost any time. I hope Chertoff is watching this wicked, wicked woman.

Anyway, now we men know what the feminists are up to. I think all rational people should take a long hard look at the consequences of so-called Betty Crocker Feminism. Having wars and economic depressions and manipulated money supplies and dumb down of our schools and information sources causing death and poverty and misery unnecessarily around the world is one thing, but to actually target billionaires responsible for it all strikes against the heart of everything we believe in. Certain the ends do not justify the means under any circumstances. It is simply not Christian to go around killing the people responsible for the deaths of millions and the impoverishment of billions. I suspect that some of these Betty Crocker Feminists aren't even Christian. In fact it is obvious that Betty Crocker Feminism is nothing more than terrorism pure and simple. It must be stopped. That is why I suggest you vote for George Bush or Hillary Clinton or some other person who understands the values upon which the world economic and political system rests today -- someone who will protect the capitalist system from this new and awful brand of feminism.

I'd help you fight it, but I have recently retired from all politics. I find politics a losing proposition but I just can't seem to find anything to replace it. Certainly BCF is not the answer -- don't even think about it. And especially don't discuss it with your friends or encourage your friends to discuss it with others.

 Back to Archived Articles