Engage In Sex, Not War
By Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts
October 11, 2016
During the sexual scandals of Bill Clinton — the “bimbo eruptions” as Hillary called them — the Democrats and progressive opinion ruled out a person’s sex life as a political factor. Now suddenly nothing more than juvenile locker room banter without the actual sex has become the determinant of political unfitness.
Where did the 11-year old recording of locker room talk between Donald Trump and Billy Bush come from? Who recorded it and kept it for 11 years for what purpose? Why was it released the day prior to the second debate between Trump and Hillary? Was the recording an illegal violation of privacy? What became of the woman who recorded Monica Lewinsky’s confession to her of sex with Bill Clinton? Wasn’t she prosecuted for wiretaping or some such offense? Why was Billy Bush, the relative of two US presidents, suspended from his TV show because of a private conversation with Trump?
You have to take men’s sexual banter with a grain of salt, just as you do their fish stories. President or candidate Bill Clinton himself publicly engaged in sexual banter. If memory serves, in a speech to blue collar workers, Bill said that the bed of his pickup truck was covered in artificial turf and “you know what that was for.” In the Clinton White House according to reports there were a number of female interns seeking Bill’s sexual attention. The scantily clad young women came to work sans underwear until Hillary put her foot down. One wonders if the Secret Service was told to inspect compliance with the dress code.
The One Percent masquerading as prudes want to remove Trump as the Republican candidate. Just how the people’s choice of presidential candidate is removed in a democracy prior to election, the prudes do not say. No one wanted to remove Clinton from the presidency despite the sexual use of the Oval Office, called at the time the “Oral Orifice.” The House Republicans wanted to remove Clinton not for sex but for lying about it, but the Senate would not go along with it. As senators all lied about their sexual liaisons, they saw no harm in it.
What disturbs me about the importance attributed to Trump’s sexual banter is that we have in front of us the dangerous situation of the neoconservatives pushing for Washington to attack Syrian and Russian forces in Syria and the chief Washington propagandist, neocon Carl Gershman, calling publicly for the US to “summon the will” to bring regime change to Russia. The tensions between the two nuclear powers are currently at all time highs, and this dangerous situation is not a factor in the US presidential election! And some people wonder why I call Americans insouciant.
The US media, 90% owned by the One Percent, have teamed up with their owners against the American people — the 99 Percent. As Trump observed during the second presidential “debate,” ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper teamed up with Hillary against him: “Nice, three on one,” Trump said.
Do the 99 Percent understand that the anti-Trump hysteria fanned by the presstitutes is intended to keep the people in economic bondage and at war? https://www.rt.com/usa/362298-media-endorsing-hillary-clinton/
We all know that the hysteria over the Trump-Billy Bush locker room banter is orchestrated for political purposes. But consider the absurdity of it all. Trump’s private expression of sexual interest in an attractive member of the opposite sex has been declared by the presstitutes to be “extremely lewd comments about women.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-billy-bush-today-show-20161009-story.html
Is what is going on here the criminalization of heterosexual sex?
Feminist say that women do not want to be regarded as sex objects, but much of womankind disagrees, judging by the provocative way some of them dress. Clothes designers, assuming they are good judges of the apparal market for women, also disagree. At the latest Paris fashion show (October 1) Vivienne Westwood displayed a dress on which the female sexual organs are displayed on the dress. https://sputniknews.com/photo/201610071046086772-pictures-week-october-07/
Vivienne Westwood is a woman, a British fashion designer. She has twice earned the award for British Designer of the Year. The Queen of England awarded her the aristocratic title of Dame Commander of the British Empire (DBE) “for services to fashion.”
At a ceremony honoring her at Buckingham Palace, Westwood appeared without panties and twirled her skirt in the courtyard of the palace. Photographers caught the event, and in Vivienne’s words, “ the result was more glamourous than I expected.”
As recently as 2012, Vivienne was chosen by a panel of academics, historians, and journalists as one of The New Elizabethans who have had a major impact on the UK and given this age its character.
In 18th century England, if historians are correct, young women would appear at evening social functions in wet gowns that clung to their bodies the better to indicate their charms. Some of them died of pneumonia as a consequence. They did this on their own accord to attract the attention of the opposite sex.
According to reports, robotic sexual partners are being created for men and women that are superior to the real thing. Other news reports are that young Japanese men go on vacation with their sex apps, not with girlfriends. There are indications that as the advancement in social approval of homosexual, lesbian, and transgendered sex progresses, heterosexual sex is acquiring the designation of queer. If Trump had expressed sexual interest in a male or a transgendered person, it would be politically incorrect to mention it. Only heterosexual sexual impulses are a political target.
We have reached that point in which women can appear in high heels with skirts that barely cover their nether parts and their braless breasts exposed, and men are lewd if they notice.
Do women really want it this way?
Is Hillary really going to win the election because Trump is sexually interested in women?
No comments yet.