Donald Trump, the Clintons, and Sexual Politics

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Donald Trump was obviously digging his own grave last month when he brought up the point that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. The Monica Lewinsky debacle, Trump argued, should have been a piece of evidence against Bill.

Trump moved on to make the point that Hillary Clinton is responsible for Bill’s sexual proclivities. Hillary, added Trump, was an enabler.[1] And Bill, according to Trump, is a rapist. Trump said that Bill “abused women more than any man that we know of in the history of politics.”[2]

Trump didn’t stop there. He added: “She’s married to a man who hurt many women. Hillary hurt many women, the women that he abused.”[3]

True, Bill literally got caught with his pants down numerous times. And it would be foolish for anyone to obviate this fact. But what about Trump? Is he without his own spot and blemish? How does he enjoy the fruits of his extreme wealth? The recent release of a 2005 recording of Trump making sexually aggressive and lewd comments about women obviously weakens virtually everything Trump has said so far in the debate:

“You know and I moved on her [Nancy O’Dell] actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fu$k her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily.

“In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

“I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Trump will have to spend some time explaining how his actions are morally different from those of Bill Clinton. But in order to be fair, let’s turn the table around a bit. Right after the video was released, Hillary quickly tweeted: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.”

Hillary should have been the last person to say this. If this is “horrific,” why did Hillary bullied Bill’s accusers? If the culture really cares about Trump’s remarks, why did they dump Monika Lewinsky, who later thought that she was betrayed by the same culture? Lewinsky remembered:

“Overnight, I went from being a completely private figure to a publicly humiliated one worldwide. Granted, it was before social media, but people could still comment online, email stories, and, of course, email cruel jokes. I was branded as a tramp, tart, slut, whore, bimbo, and, of course, ‘that woman’.

“It was easy to forget that ‘that woman’ was dimensional, had a soul, and was once unbroken… I was hung out to dry by a lot of people. It was very scary to be a young woman thrust on to the world stage… I felt like every layer of my skin and my identity were ripped off of me in ’98 and ’99.”[4]

Who came to deliver Lewinsky from her moral problem? Did Hillary make a move? How about Gloria Steinem and the entire feminist movement? Did they even care?

No.

But that again shouldn’t get Trump off the hook. In response to his sexually aggressive comments, Trump said: “I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am.”[5]

Trump also blamed “GOP traitors! Not supporting U is voting for her, destroying America.” What does that mean? Does Trump really think that the GOP should support him for whatever disgusting thing he does or says? Does he really think that he is beyond criticism or even above the moral law?

Furthermore, did Bill say he was a perfect person? What, then, was Trump’s point when he revived Bill’s old charges? And if a lewd comment on women was “a distraction from the issues we are facing today” as he said,[6] why was he doing the same thing to Bill and Hillary? If a former presidential candidate like Bernie Sanders had described women as “pussy,” does Trump really want to tell us that this is not a moral problem which ought to be addressed?

We can condemn Bill for doing lewd things to women, but Trump ought not to be criticized for saying that he wanted to pursue almost the same thing? And if we have to brush aside Trump’s words because it happened eleven years ago, shouldn’t we cut Bill some slack about Juanita Broaddrick because it happened almost forty years ago?

In addition, what would Trump say to Jill Harth, a pageant owner who worked with Trump in the mid-1990s and who “filed suit against him in federal court in Manhattan in 1997, describing a ‘relentless’ campaign of sexual harassment and assault including an incident in which he reached under a table, put his hands on her thighs and grabbed her ‘intimate private parts’ during a meeting at a New York restaurant”?[7]

You see, what Trump and Hillary are inexorably telling us here is that the sexual revolution failed miserably and pathetically, an issue that Dolly Kyle Browning, one of Bill’s victims,[8] didn’t seem to understand during our interview last June.

The media and politicians are basically saying that it is wrong to “grab a person by the pussy,” that it is wrong to call a person “a bitch,” and that it is wrong to use manipulation to “fu$k” a person. But that is the opposite of what the sexual revolution represent! Keep in mind that one of the leading figures of the sexual revolution was none other than Jewish revolutionary Wilhelm Reich.[9]

Reich, who contracted syphilis, actually coined the term “sexual revolution.” Reich taught that a man can only be free if he is able to liberate himself from morality, particularly sexual morality. His Mass Psychology of Fascism is a textbook for the sexual revolution. Reich wrote,

“If one succeeds in getting rid of the childhood fear of masturbation and as a result thereof genitality demands gratification, then intellectual insight and sexual gratification are wont to prevail…the mechanism that makes masses of people incapable of freedom is the social suppression of genital sexuality in small children, adolescents, and adults.”[10]

Reich meant it when he postulated quite explicitly:

“The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition…We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality!”[11]

The sexual revolution changed the mores of the culture, and Friedrich Nietzsche would have almost certainly called it the transvaluation of all values because it ended up breaking all the sexual rules and norms. This revolution had enormous moral and intellectual consequences because those who follow it always end up living in contradiction.

The children of the revolution abandoned practical reason when they pledged allegiance to the revolution itself, which eventually objectified women in films and music videos such as Deep Throat and “Bitch, I’m Madonna” or “Pussycat Dolls.” This is one reason why flaming feminists and academics like Camille Paglia are now criticizing the sex culture.

What the sexual revolution and its progenitors completely and deliberately ignored was that man is a rational creature, and he was created to follow reason in the moral and political order. Whenever he fails to fulfill his moral duty, moral and intellectual chaos inexorably follows.

The late Christopher Hitchens had to learn that principle the hard way. He and Richard Dawkins[12] once planned to arrest Pope Benedict XVI back in 2010 because the Pope, they argued, should have condemned homosexual activity among the clergy, particularly when it came to priests getting caught in the act.

But Hitchens, who wrote that Juanita Broaddrick’s rape claim was true in his book No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton,[13] was a flaming homosexual! He even had a section in his book Hitch-22 graphically detailing homosexual gestures and acts as a boy in an all-male school![14]

Hitchens pursued that homosexual lifestyle all the way to Oxford University.[15] Did he think he was doing something wrong? No. In fact, according to atheism, which Hitchens espoused and promoted aggressively, there is no such thing as objective morality.

So, the plot thickens. Hitchens could pursue homosexual activity, but Catholic priests could not. If you are trying to understand this internal contradiction, I suggest you go to Hitchens’ grave, dig the body up, resuscitate him, and ask him for an explanation. Hitchens shot himself in the toes when he wrote,

“I always take it for granted that sexual moralizing by public figures is a sign of hypocrisy or worse, and most usually a desire to perform the very act that is most being condemned.”[16]

Hitchens was a public figure and was obviously condemning the Pope. Did he, then, still have “a desire to perform the very act that is most being condemned”? According to his own logic, he did.

Once again, it is very easy to detect or dissect internal contradictions among those who deliberately reject or mock morality. Keep also in mind that academics are still teaching the principles of the sexual revolution on college campuses.

Moreover, Darwinists tell us that there is a biological basis for sexual coercion or rape.[17] Darwinism states that there is no such thing as morality,[18] but Darwinists would like to tell us all that rape is morally wrong! These people are trying to have it both ways, but they are failing miserably and pathetically. Why?

Because a person cannot deviate from the moral law and remain rational. Dinesh D’Souza could say that it was wrong for Bill Clinton to pay Paula Jones an $800,000 settlement,[19] but D’Souza could never explain to us why he was engaged to a younger woman (Denise Odie Joseph II) while he was still married to his wife (Dixie Brubaker) of twenty years.[20]

Newt Gingrich condemned Bill for his sexual appetite, but Gingrich wanted to have an open marriage so he could have multiple mistresses. “Gingrich also acknowledged cheating on Marianne Ginther while leading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for allegations of perjury involving the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil case and the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.”[21]

Two days after he asked his wife for an open marriage and then a divorce,

“Gingrich gave a speech at a conference titled “The Demise of American Culture” sponsored by the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa. Gingrich extolled the virtues of the Founding Fathers and criticized liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, which he said hurt families and children.”[22]

[1] David Martosko, “Trump slams Hillary Clinton for not ‘protecting women’ in video featuring voices of Bill’s sex-assault and rape accusers,” Daily Mail, May 24, 2016.

[2] William Cummings, “Donald Trump hits Bill Clinton with old rape allegation,” USA Today, May 19, 2016.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Jon Ronson, “Monica Lewinsky: ‘The shame sticks to you like tar,’” Guardian, April 22, 2016.

[5] David A. Fahrenthold, “Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005,” Washington Post, October 8, 2016.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nina Burleigh, ‘He Grabbed Me’: Woman Alleges Trump Groped Her Exactly as Described on Tape,” Newsweek, October 8, 2016.

[8] “Declaration of Dolly Kyle Browning,” Washington Post, March 13, 1998.

[9] For a cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).

[10] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Catholic Church and the Cultural Revolution (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2016), kindle edition.

[11] Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character (New York: Doubleday, 1971), 53.

[12] Helen Pidd, “Richard Dawkins calls for Pope to be put on trial,” Guardian, April 11, 2010.

[13] Christopher Hitchens, No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton (New York: Verso, 1999).

[14] Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2010), 74-78.

[15] Geoffrey Levy, “So who WERE the two Tory ministers who had gay flings with Christopher Hitchens at Oxford?,” Daily Mail, March 6, 2010.

[16] Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir, 78.

[17] Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).

[18] See for example Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, May 15, 2010.

[19] Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa, “Trump stirs old Clinton sex scandals, to the dismay of some allies,” Washington Post, September 29, 2016.

[20] “Anti-Obama filmmaker quits as president of Christian college over claims he is engaged to younger woman while married to his wife of 20 years,” Daily Mail, October 19, 2012.

[21] Jake Tapper, “Gingrich Admits to Affair During Clinton Impeachment,” ABC News, March 9, 2007.

[22] James V. Grimaldi, “Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s ex-wife, says he wanted ‘open marriage,’” Washington Post, January 19, 2012.

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>