FEMINISM: MASK FOR MARXISM?
Tom Valentine's guest on *Radio Free America* (Shortwave, 5.065
MHz, mon-fri, 9 pm cst) on December 28, 1994 was Andrea Pearson,
editor-in-chief of a newsletter called "Americans In Exile"
[contact info to be included below]. Ms. Pearson has some non-
politically correct views on feminism, etc. Note that views
expressed in the following do not necessarily reflect my own
views or those of Conspiracy Nation.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Absolutely, I think it is. Also, when Congress considered passing
this U.N. treaty, they talk about how "patterns of conduct" is in
article five of the treaty.
All right. Now this U.N. Convention, this treaty, is this the one
that goes clear back to 1957, in establishing the U.N.?
Or is this something new?
Well, actually, it was signed on behalf of the united States in
1980. It has not been ratified yet. But one provision in the
document is to say that the different States' parties can bring
their own federal laws into compliance.
Now what this treaty does, in lots of ways, is it regulates
conduct, it alters culture... It talks about how the State should
provide for health care, and women should have equal opportunity
for all sorts of things -- that I don't think the American people
*want* women to have equal opportunity, say, for military
service. Or we don't necessarily feel that our "patterns of
conduct" or our culture are something that we want changed.
What disturbs me the most about this is that there was no public
debate about this [e.g. The Gender Equity in Education Act]. And
I believe that anyone who's a historian or who has studied
American history *knows* that people like Thomas Jefferson,
George Washington, and so forth, were not "white male dictators"
in general, and certainly did not abuse their wives. And yet
Marxists believe that they did.
Just this one piece of evidence of that: if you look at the
*Notes on the State of Virginia* by Thomas Jefferson... And he's
writing, in this case, about the American Indians. But he's
talking about how *they* relate, in terms of men and women. And
he says, "It is civilization alone which places women in the
enjoyment of their natural equality."
And I believe that, in America, women were free creatures who
were very happy the way they were. And not only that, they worked
when they wanted to. There was, in fact, no discrimination
Well if they wanted to [work], they certainly could.
All right. If you'd like to join us, 1-800-878-8255. Andrea
Pearson is my guest. "Feminizing and Marxizing Us". I'm Tom
Valentine, *Radio Free America*.
All right, we are back, live. And a very important part of
everyday life is being discussed tonight: the role of women in
this here united States of America.
Mark, [in] Sarasota. You're on, with Andrea.
Yeah. Good evening, Andrea. It's just wonderful and refreshing to
hear a woman come on the air with your viewpoints. Actually,
today, in the media, that's all you get is the left-wing
viewpoint of women -- feminized, feministic views of women today.
I have one point that I want to just clarify with you. You
mentioned that it's our Judeo-Christian heritage. Actually, it's
really our Christian heritage. And that's an important part and
it should be emphasized too. That when we go back and we're
talkin' about people like Thomas Jefferson and some of our
founding fathers and George Washington, remember that this was a
Christian heritage. It wasn't a Judeo-Christian heritage. Many of
the Marxist, Communist ideas have been introduced in the Judeo-
Christian churches today which are not really our founding,
Christian heritage at all.
I understand what you're saying, about our Christian heritage,
and I agree with you. But I also believe that there are a number
of very honorable and good Jewish people who honor the same
principles that I talk about, that you are espousing too. And I
don't like to exclude people -- and particularly if you read in
the work of St. Paul, in Romans, [chapter] eleven. He talks about
how even though some of these Jewish people may have been
deceived, that that was for our blessing. And I really don't like
to divide things according to religious lines when I'm talking
And I think that the Biblical history as well is something that
shows very *clearly* what the role of women should be. And it's
often referred to in the New Testament. Also, those kinds of
things are found in the Old Testament, such as the ruling of
Appolya(?), or Jezebel, in Judah. I don't think that (even though
I sense in many of the Jewish people that they espouse this kind
of agenda), I think that many people who are Christians, or who
call themselves Christians, often have incorporated the Feminist
agenda into their very churches. I hear [of] female ministers and
female priests, and I don't believe that that's something that's
according to God's law! I think that...
That's a big fight going on right now, especially in the Lutheran
and the Episcopalian church.
Absolutely! And I've watched that. And I'm particularly disturbed
at the way that Christianity is being re-written. And I think we,
as Christians, need to mind our own business pretty carefully.
Because things are gettin' serious out there.
All right. Mark, I understand where you're coming from also: that
there are many people who feel that the traditional, Christian
values have been distorted. And one of the things to do is to use
language in such a way, and that the Ecumenical movement, which
has watered down basic Christianity, utilized that phrase,
...and people see it for that and... And so you both make a good
point, and I appreciate your call very much!
Gene, in Savannah, Georgia.
How are ya doin', Tom?
Uh, Andrea. Pleased ta meet ya. You've got a very good, and
serious, subject. I think it strikes at the *heart* of the matter
of what's happening in America. If we can strike at this, first,
the right to bear arms is second to this. We need to back it up.
But as a man, and someone who tries to exercise their rights over
children, it becomes very difficult. And how to attack it: I've
done a little research, reaching, uh studying Kent's commentaries
and Blackstone's commentaries. I've discovered that even the
common law doesn't really help that much. It seems like the
common law has been divided into, well, I think it's been
traversed. I call it, "the king's common law". And I think the
last caller has a pretty good point. I studied Judaism a little
bit, and it looks like, in the Jewish religion, that the mother
is held up as the head of the family. And under the king's common
law, the kind of like, you know, in the old days, about
legitimizing a child and all that -- and it has a lot to do with
today's "birth certificate". If you don't have a birth
certificate, you lose... you know, you almost... You try to
retain your rights to your child, but without the birth
certificate you're in a paradox and you lose your rights to the
And if you look into the law libraries, you can read about using
the petition of *habeas corpus* to bring the child forth. And I
think this is evidence that the Biblical common law was where the
father was head of the family and, you know, as long as he obeyed
God's law. And well, whoever, you know, really disobeyed the law
of God was actually the one who should be, you know, punished or
what have you. But the child should stay with the father as long
as, you know, he obeyed...
Well the point that seems to be coming out of both of you is
that, the traditions that are the glue of our society have been
set down in Scripture for a long, long time -- both in the Old
and the New Testaments. And if we stopped getting away from that,
we wouldn't be doing so badly.
Yeah. I'm wondering if, when this type of "king's common law", as
I call it, has been switched from Biblical common law over... I
was wondering if it was when Oliver Cromwell allowed the Jewish
people into England. I'm just theorizing.
That's a, that's a subject for another show some night. And there
are a lot of people that go into that particular aspect of the
control over the British-speaking [sic] people and the use of the
Bible and so on.
Gene, I appreciate your call.
Dan, in Schenectady, New York!
Yes sir! Well I wanna say two things: one is, it's a privilege to
be listening to you, Andrea, and hearing your commentary tonight.
And Tom, we've been listening to you for a couple of years, and
in the last year or so on shortwave. And it's good to hear you in
First, I wanna say, number one, is the comments with regard to
the laws passed and everything: I think the issue that many of us
are concerned about is, a lot of times (in the dark of night, so
to speak) laws are passed that nobody knows much about. And it
really brings us to the question of localism. In not just, you
know, laws, but in virtually controlling the community around us.
A lot of the things that are mentioned in the law that Andrea
raised, or I should say, that was passed, are probably more
proper items for a local community. Because a lot of times it
depends on that local community -- its mores, their social
conditions, and what's involved. And a lot of times, we lose
track of the fact that, you know, the whole, the whole issue of
our Constitution, etc., invests a lot of power *downward*. From
the federal level, down to the local communities.
Well Dan, that's what I've thought: that this doesn't belong in
the federal government at all. And I'm out of time right now, and
I really appreciate your calling. And I'll have Andrea comment on
what you had to say, as soon as we get back.
I'm Tom Valentine. This is *Radio Free America*.
[...to be continued...]