I don't think it's possible to escape all the vitriol that reddit vomits on Hillary, and for that reason I doubt that you'll be able to inspire a meaningful conversation on this subject. That being said, I don't think she's used the analogy correctly; if she had, she would only say that we should trust ourselves. The leaders (ie the Inner Party), the press (ie Ministry of Truth), and the 'experts' (are there any in *1984*?) are all the people Winston Smith should *not* rely on.
If you take the literary moment out of the context of the novel, you can understand the point she's trying to make. Attempting to define reality *is* a core feature of authoritarianism, and that *is* what happens with 2+2=5—and the leaders, press, and experts *should* be trusted if they are not a part of the authoritarian gov't trying to convince the people of lies. Unfortunately, as that is not the case in *1984*, the analogy falls apart.
No, of course it isn't. Best case scenario, this is the result of poor editing/ghost writing.
Worst case scenario, HRC radically misunderstood the point of 1984.
No, but that's mainly because in Oceania the Party was also the leaders, press, and experts. Any opposition was quickly crushed.
We have noticed your thread's title mentioned a popular book title in /r/books. Please consider visiting some of [these recent threads!](/r/books/search?q=1984&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) You might also enjoy the subreddit /r/1984!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/books) if you have any questions or concerns.*
considering the torturer that she mentions is one of those leaders that she entreats people to rely on, i'm not even sure that she's read the fucking book.
I'm sure, Orwell would not be happy about mentioning him in such context.
I like Orwell for not using the word "trust".