No products in the cart.


Hillary Clinton’s Alternative Take On What “1984” Was All About

Hillary Clinton's Alternative Take On What "1984" Was All About

This is very telling. It displays for the world to see, that Hillary Clinton looks down upon the people she sought to rule. She believes only in rulers and experts, not the people. That she either cannot see, or is unwilling to see, what 1984 was warning about, is a sign of her deep-seated, almost fanatical belief in government and “experts” who are not responsible to the people they serve. – Shorty Dawkins


This article comes from

Since the official release of Hillary’s new book “What Happened” yesterday, our sense of logic and rational thought has been under constant assault by a steady stream of ‘Hillary-isms’ which provide some rather dark insights into the bizarro world in which she lives.

That said, we’ve seen nothing that tops the following excerpt in which Hillary offers up her expert opinion on the key life lesson that should be learned from “1984”, namely that we should trust and rely on “our leaders, the press, and experts who seek to guide public policy.”

“Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism.  This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos.  This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner see five fingers as ordered.  The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.”

Sorry, Hillary…but we’re pretty sure that the key takeaway from ‘1984’ was not that we should all trust the government and media just a little more…

We’ve been saying this a lot lately but we find it helpful to clarify in instances such as this…yes, this is real life.


Shorty Dawkins


One comment

  1. As far as I can tell, she is not misreading 1984. She seems to understand it entirely but is viewing it as an attack on leadership. What is most troubling to me is that she references the Soviet Union at the beginning of that passage and then rejects 1984.

Comments are closed.