Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3 Num. 66

("Quid coniuratio est?")


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 Valentine.

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 interesting.

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", "Marxist"?

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 roles.

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 different.

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.

[ be continued...]

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" to -- To cancel, send a message in the form "unsubscribe conspire" to
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9

Brian Francis Redman "The Big C"

Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"