What Bill Clinton and Paula Jones Affair Means

…by Jonas E. Alexis

In 1994, a woman by the name of Paula Jones accused then Governor Bill Clinton of dropping his pants and underwear, exposing “his penis (which was erect),” and asking her to “kiss it” in a hotel room in Little Rock, Arkansas.[1] Jones, the Daily Mail has reported,

“told her sisters and mother about the incident but took no further action. It wasn’t until two years later, in 1993, when former Clinton bodyguards spoke in a magazine interview about escorting a woman called ‘Paula’ to his room in May 1991 that she was advised to go public.”[2]

There is much evidence which seems to suggest that there is some truth to this.[3] In fact, Clinton agreed “to pay her $850,000” to drop the case.[4] Previously, Clinton “asked that the civil suit be put off until he left the White House but in January 1997 an appeals court ruled the trial should go ahead.”[5]

Things got settled then. People moved on. Mrs. Jones started to live a quiet life, and things got quiet for a while.

More than twenty years later, Mrs. Jones is back in the spotlight. She has recently left her obscure life and come out and declared that Hillary Clinton should not be running for president because

“There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband. They have both lied…Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women? They have both lied.

“He does not have a right to be in the White House to serve the people the way he treated women, sexually harassing women. There were many women that came out and spoke out about what he did to them. He does not have a place in the White House to serve the American people.”[6]

Fair enough. But let us take the issue to the next realm. Why did Jones agree to go to meet Clinton in a hotel room alone back then? What was really in her mind? To be quite blunt, if Mrs. Jones was really against what happened, why did she agree to prostrate before pornographic magazines such as Penthouse after the Clinton debacle? Does she mean to tell us that Clinton was wrong but her graphic work at Penthouse was right? Does she mean to tell us that she wasn’t she titillating Clinton then? Who is she really fooling here?

Furthermore, if Clinton was wrong, why doesn’t Mrs. Jones confront Penthouse as well for what Madonna would have called driving men to their death?

You see, Mrs. Jones is trying to have her cake and eat it too. She appeals to the moral law when it suits her, but denies the moral law when it goes against her sex project.

There is also some evidence which indicates that Mrs. Jones was comfortably happy with Clinton. At one point, she would go to the gubernatorial office and “‘asked whether Mr. Clinton was in and, if not, when he would return,’ and praised him as ‘such a gentle person.’”[7]

“Much of the new evidence undermining Ms Jones comes from Daniel Traylor, the Little Rock lawyer who first represented her (and who quit the case in late June). Mr Traylor says that, during the four months in which he originally represented her, Ms Jones never mentioned the ‘distinguishing characteristics in [Mr] Clinton’s genital area’ that formed part of the complaint she filed, with the help of two new lawyers, in May 1994.

“Mr Traylor also says that Pamela Blackard, a witness who told journalists that Ms Jones had returned ‘shaking’ from Mr Clinton’s hotel room, had told him that Ms Jones’s account of what happened was in fact much less dramatic—and that Ms Jones had added the most lurid details several days later. Mr Traylor also claims that, in early 1994, Ms Jones and her husband received a payment of $1,000 from a right-wing film maker.”[8]

So, money was still an issue after all.

Mrs. Jones has just taught us once again that you cannot play dice with the moral law and come out safe. You cannot dress like sluts and whores and then pretend that you don’t know why or how you got raped.

Jones incited Clinton with pornographic pictures and Clinton acted upon those sexual titillations. If we follow the logic of the sexual freedom which the sex industry and the Dreadful Few have forced upon us all, Clinton was actually right! Clinton, as E. Michael Jones later wrote, “had become the paradigm of Enlightenment man,”[9] which is to say that he went by the definition that the Enlightenment and its intellectual children have forced upon the West.

In short, the sex industry and the capitalist regime tell us that pornography means freedom,[10] but the same system violates its own principles by punishing its own children when they get involved in pornography. This internal contradiction is certainly unlivable. However, it is quite rampant, most specifically in the sex industry. As E. Michael Jones put it then:

“Shortly after Monica Lewinsky became a political liability, the same crowd that frothed at the mouth during the Clarence Thomas hearings about women’s rights and sexual harassment were now calling Miss Lewinsky, from behind the veil of anonymity, ‘a little nutty and a little slutty.’

“As in the case of abortion—and l’affaire Lewinsky coincided uncannily with the twenty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade—the lesson was all too obvious for those with eyes to see: the lusts of the powerful were more important than the lives of the weak. Monica Lewinsky was just a twenty-four-year-old late-term fetus thrown onto the garbage heap of sexual convenience, as the feminists looked the other way once again, because her case did not fit into their agenda.

“The talking-class feminists found that Clinton put them in an especially uncomfortable position. Columnist Ellen Goodman struggled valiantly with the fact that her favorite politician was engaged in behavior that would be grounds for lynching if perpetrated by someone at the other end of the political spectrum, and came up with the notion that Americans had become more ‘morally sophisticated’ since the Clarence Thomas hearings. What she meant to say was that they had stopped trying to believe that there should be some congruity between a person’s public and private life.”[11]

Jones concluded,

“The lesson here is clear. The talking class had adopted sexual liberation as its moral code. What they probably didn’t understand at the time is that once they adopted it as their code of behavior, they condemned themselves to promote that behavior in others even more influential than themselves, lest in condemning it, they leave themselves open to blackmail or charges of hypocrisy.”[12]

Mrs. Jones may have been a victim, but at least she needs to be brave enough to expose the sex industry, her own system, and say quite frankly that she has been duped by it. Until she does that, then there is no way that we can take her case seriously. Mrs. Jones says of Clinton, “He should be a man. I am sure it would have been a different story if he had just told the truth.”[13]

Once again, this is fair enough. But will Mrs. Jones be a decent woman and tell the truth about Penthouse and the pornographic industry?

The answer seems to be no.

“Active on social media, Jones enjoys posting sefies and having maintained the looks and figure that earned her a nude photo spread, she laps up compliments from friends.”[14]

[1] Paul Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[2] Ibid.

[3] See for example Daniel Klaidman, “Clinton V. Paula Jones,” Newsweek, January 12, 1997.

[4] Peter Baker, “Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000,” Washington Post, November 14, 1998.

[5] Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[6] Quoted in Paul Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[7] Cited in “Taylor-Made: The Paula Jones Affair,” The Economist, July 3, 1997.

[8] Ibid.

[9] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 601.

[10] Ibid., 587-588.

[11] Ibid., 602.

[12] Ibid., 603.

[13] Thompson, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Don’t let Bill back in the White House, he abused women and he’ll do it again.’ Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary – because she also lied about sex case which almost cost him presidency,” Daily Mail, May 28, 2015.

[14] Ibid.

Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant 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 new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>