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.
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
[Awesome sounds of John Phillip Souza's "Stars and Stripes Forever"]
It's *Radio Free America*, the talk show for intelligent 
Americans, with your host, Tom Valentine.
*Radio Free America* is brought to you by *The Spotlight* [CN -- 
Note: Throw mud here.] Call 1-800-522-6292 for your subscription.
And now, the newspaper that "tells it like it is" presents Tom 
Hello, everybody. Welcome back, to *Radio Free America*.
And before I get to my guest and to our topic tonight, I want to 
bring up something that I mentioned in the first hour.
The *New York Times* lead editorial today [12/28/94] should be 
framed and hung on the mantle like the antlers of a trophy animal 
by a big hunter, down at *The Spotlight*. "The Miscalculation in 
Chechnya," it says.
"President Boris Yeltsin was justified," (get that), "...was 
justified in using force against the breakaway Russian republic 
of Chechnya."
So, right off the bat, the opinion of the owners of the *New York 
Times* organization is, that Yeltsin was "justified" in this that 
we're watching on the media right now.
And it was *The Spotlight* that pointed out yesterday, or this 
week's *Spotlight* points out that the bankers are behind the 
move on it, and that Russia got the nod from the united States. 
In fact, on December the 11th, Boris Yeltsin was given the green 
light to go ahead and attack, according to *The Spotlight*, by 
none other than Strobe Talbot of the Clinton administration!
The very last paragraph of this long, rambling [*New York Times*] 
editorial chastising Boris Yeltsin for being clumsy as he carries 
out the orders from the boardroom... The very last paragraph 
says, "Washington has an interest in keeping Russia and 'reform' 
intact." It does. And this is the wonderful paragraph here, that 
belongs on the mantle: "After initially giving Mr. Yeltsin a 
green light for military intervention [in Chechnya]..."
They just got through chewing him out for being clumsy and his 
application of the military and his not finding a political 
solution. But they're admitting that Mr. Yeltsin was given a 
green light by the Clinton administration. Well how is it the 
Clinton administration can give the Russian bear a green light to 
kill people if it isn't somebody higher up? And I don't mean God, 
but people playing God with all the money -- the bankers.
This editorial, folks, you should get it and frame it. Today's 
*New York Times* editorial on Chechnya. It's an excellent piece 
to prove our point.
Now. We gotta change gears, change subject, totally. On *Radio 
Free America*, whenever I have open phones in the last few years, 
one of my, I would call 'em regular callers, is a lovely lady. 
She calls in from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. And she always has 
something intelligent to contribute. And so last week when she 
called and we were talking, I asked her if she'd be a guest. And 
she has agreed to be a guest. So I want to introduce Andrea, from 
Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Of course, we always use only first 
names of callers. However, Andrea, you have stepped out of the 
anonymity of caller-ship and you have... Your last name is 
"Pearson". Andrea Pearson, you are no longer anonymous.
Welcome to *Radio Free America*.
Good evening, Tom.
First of all, tell me a little about yourself. Why is it that you 
have this consuming interest in the, the movement of the 
feminists and their influence on our society?
Well it's my observation that, under the banner of Feminism, 
Marxism and Socialism are being imposed on the American people. 
And not only that, but Feminism and the culture that has replaced 
the American culture that we once had, is a paradigm. And because 
men are so socialized to protect women from things that are 
offensive, and to give them good things -- that no one speaks 
against it.
Wow... Wait a minute, wait a minute. What you just said is very 
Because we men... And if you're brought from a traditional 
family, you are taught by your parents that uh, the "ladies 
first" and to have courtesy and that the distaff side of things 
is to get all of your attention. And we *do* for our women. 
That's the purpose of a man being alive. We're taught that.
And you're saying that, because of that, these feminists have an 
edge in pushing their agenda.
...the Marxists in our government and in the U.N. are 
manipulating the male nature in order to impose Marxist policies 
and programs and [to] influence our belief systems and change our 
culture. I think it's one of the most destructive forces that has 
ever happened in the history of the world. And...
This is gonna be very interesting, Andrea. We have a break coming 
up. But already, I'm interested.
My guest is Andrea Pearson, from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. And 
the gender war, being used on us. I'm Tom Valentine, this is 
*Radio Free America*.
All right, we are back, live. And my guest is Andrea Pearson. And 
she's out of Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
And before we go anywhere further with your thesis and so forth, 
Andrea... When you say "Marxist"... Now that has a different 
connotation to a lot of different people. My idea of a Marxist is 
one thing, yours may be another. How are you using "Marxism", 
Well in the writings of Karl Marx and other Communists, they 
write about their belief systems in many different ways. For 
instance, in terms of borders, who owns property, who can own 
land, who owns the operation of the industry, [who] controls 
that, and so forth.
But they also have very strong beliefs about marriage. They 
believe that marriage is a system imposed by a patriarchal, 
capitalistic system, by men, onto women. And that it's something 
that is *used* by men, against women, by force.
So you're using "Marxist" as "those who have taken the ideas of 
Karl Marx and others, and put them together to centralize things 
and to break down standard traditions, such as the basic, nuclear 
family, for the purposes of the State or the people in charge at 
that central headquarters running everything."
Well not only do these people want to have power over us. They 
want to destroy the American economy. They want to destroy our 
borders. They want to make restrictions about who can own 
property and about how industry is regulated.
Well that's what our government's doing now. And we don't have 
any Marxists in the American government -- ha, ha, ha.
We certainly do. And they are also doing very severe damage, 
through legislation, to the American family. And to, also, our 
belief systems, our culture. When you think about America, you 
think about its culture and its rituals [CN -- also its colorful 
colloquialisms, so *verboten* now in our major universities]. And 
in terms of gender politics, what you might think of is, in the 
1950s, the way a man would tip his hat to a lady or open a door 
for her. Or the way daddy felt about his little girl. And how 
boys, or children, inter-related with each other in terms of sex 
Well the U.N. has an interest in that. And they have an interest 
and it's very strong. There's a Convention on the Elimination of 
all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And we, as a nation, 
have had a Congress and President who have decided that they want 
to impose that, as the force of law, upon the American people. 
And what *my* contention is, is that the basic premise of 
Feminism is faulty. And that women were never discriminated 
against in America. And that they actually *chose* a different 
role: That they preferred to live in marriages. And they 
preferred to raise their own children. And they preferred this in 
an equal relationship before God -- although their role was 
All right. That's a very fair beginning.
Now you say legislation had something to do with this. How about 
giving me an example.
Well, let me just read you a short list of some of the more 
severe ones: Affirmative Action for Women (which is preference 
for employment for women), Campus Security Act, the Gender Equity 
in Education Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Pay 
Act (which is now pending, before Congress), and the U.N. 
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination 
Against Women. *That*, uh U.N. Convention, is something that all 
of these previous laws that I mentioned, are... those things are 
mentioned in the [U.N.] Convention. And what our Congress is 
doing is bringing us into accordance with global law concerning 
men and women.
Do you think that this movement is the reason that the man can't 
make enough money to support a family anymore; that both the man 
and the wife have to work to make ends meet today?
I think that the destruction of the economy was deliberate, in 
order to create a crisis whereby they could lure first the man, 
and then the woman, away from the children. Because a basic part 
of Communism and people who believe in Communism is that the 
children belong in the care of the State.
All right. Let's take this: The Gender Equity Act. You mentioned 
that before.
Well this is a *monstrous* piece of legislation. And just to 
begin with, with that: If you look at the studies which preceded 
the Gender Equity in Education Act and you find out what kind of 
research was done to justify this massive piece of intrusive 
legislation, what you find is that the statistics were grossly 
distorted in order to achieve the answers that the radical 
Marxist-Feminists wanted. And so, what we ended up with was a 
study that said, "Girls suffer greatly in our school system and 
in our culture. They have terrible blows to their self-esteem." 
And that, in areas like math and science, "they're greatly 
damaged and hindered by the American system" -- when, in fact, 
that's really not true.
                   [...to be continued...]