Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is presented less as a fully developed individual character than as a concentrated symbol of the political elite against which Donald Trump campaigns. The book places her in a deliberately unstable position: she is condemned as part of the establishment that serves the Old World Order, but her attacks on Trump are also used as evidence of the differences between a conventional political intermediary and a billionaire who belongs directly to the Ownership Class.

Identity and Political Position

Hillary Clinton’s defining status in the narrative is that of a political-elite figure rather than an explicit member of the dynastic economic elite. The text contrasts her with Donald Trump by arguing that she served the Old World Order as part of the political class, whereas Trump was an actual member of that underlying elite. In this arrangement, politicians function as a buffer: they absorb public blame while wealth and power remain concentrated behind them. Clinton therefore represents the familiar institutional machinery of elite rule, while Trump represents the more direct conversion of plutocratic wealth into political power.

The book also places Clinton within the failed succession to Barack Obama. Obama, described as the first black president, was expected to restore political stability and democratic credibility, but the text says that he failed to do so. Clinton is characterized as “Obama the Sequel,” an attempted continuation of the same political model that was judged incapable of solving the crisis. Her significance thus depends partly on repetition: she is not imagined as a rupture with the existing order, but as its continuation at a moment when the Old World Order was experimenting with populism and even considering whether explicit plutocracy might replace democratic legitimacy.

Conflict with Donald Trump

Clinton’s most concrete appearance is tied to her confrontation with Donald Trump over his business record. During the political contest, she accused him of having taken business bankruptcies six times. Trump answered that he had used certain laws on four occasions. The exchange is presented as a revealing contrast between accusation and evasion: Clinton’s charge identifies repeated financial failure, while Trump’s response reframes the matter as the lawful use of available mechanisms. The surrounding narration calls him a liar and “fake news,” turning the exchange into part of the book’s wider argument that his public persona is manufactured rather than authentic.

The text uses this conflict to challenge the idea that Trump was an outsider attacking the elite on behalf of ordinary workers. It repeatedly identifies him as a billionaire plutocrat with extensive property holdings and inherited wealth, while Clinton is treated as a political representative who belongs to the system that such wealth ordinarily uses as its intermediary. Their opposition is therefore described as real at the level of political performance but limited at the level of class structure. The book’s central claim is that Trump could pose as the enemy of the political elite while remaining a senior member of the economic elite.

Revenge Fantasy and Rhetorical Function

Clinton is also placed at the center of an explicitly grotesque revenge fantasy. The text imagines her checking into the top suite of Trump’s new hotel in Washington, D.C., accompanied by two male prostitutes presented as a Putin lookalike and a Trump lookalike. The scene culminates in the three figures defiling a golden bed with excrement, vomit, and urine, followed by the declaration that revenge is best served disgustingly. This episode does not advance a literal plot involving Clinton; it stages symbolic retaliation against Trump through the figure of his principal political opponent.

The fantasy’s materials are chosen for their political and sexual associations. The hotel, the top suite, and the golden bed turn wealth and luxury into objects of contamination, while the Putin and Trump doubles collapse geopolitical association and personal scandal into a single tableau. Clinton’s role is that of an agent of imagined humiliation, but the scene also reveals the narrator’s own preference for degradation as a form of political satire. Her presence is instrumental: she becomes the vehicle through which the text attempts to soil the glamour, wealth, and self-mythologizing attached to Trump.

The Clinton-Trump Contrast

The narrative insists that Clinton and Trump occupy different layers of elite power. Clinton is described as belonging to the political elite that serves the Old World Order; Trump is described as belonging to the Old World Order itself. This distinction does not make Clinton an ally of the book’s preferred politics. Instead, it explains why the text can attack her while also arguing that Trump is more fundamentally implicated in plutocratic rule. Clinton symbolizes the traditional channel through which elite interests are administered, whereas Trump symbolizes the elite stepping through that channel and taking possession of the presidency directly.

This contrast also underlies the book’s criticism of Trump supporters. It argues that they have been persuaded to regard Trump as an enemy of the political elite even though he is a billionaire member of the broader elite. In that story, Clinton is useful as the visible opponent whom Trump can denounce: she helps sustain the manufactured division between a liberal elite and a conservative elite. The book’s position is that there is only one decisive elite, the 1 percent Ownership Class, and that the apparent quarrel between Trump and Clinton obscures rather than overturns that structure.

Narrative Role and Evaluation

Clinton’s narrative role is consequently paradoxical. She is treated as a representative of a discredited political establishment, a failed successor to Obama, and an opponent whose public criticism exposes Trump’s bankruptcies. At the same time, she is used to clarify the text’s distinction between political service to wealth and direct possession of wealth. Her character does not receive an independent biography or interior arc; instead, she is repeatedly summoned as a political sign within arguments about class, taxation, democracy, and elite control.

The book’s broader institutional proposals sharpen this function. It calls for a 100 percent inheritance tax, arguing that Donald Trump inherited approximately $300 million from his father and began with $40 million in 1974 when he took over his father’s real-estate company. It also describes two tax systems, one for corporations and the super-rich and another for ordinary people, while proposing collective access to lawyers, accountants, and tax specialists through a “virtual corporation.” Clinton is not presented as the author of these alternatives or as their champion. Her importance lies in the fact that her political establishment is judged inadequate to produce them, while Trump’s victory demonstrates the danger of allowing plutocratic wealth to present itself as popular rebellion.

The text finally places Clinton inside a deliberately polarized political mythology. Against the image of Trump as a revolutionary outsider, it presents the Trump insurgency as “The Confederacy: The Sequel,” rooted in racism, white supremacy, and ultra-plutocracy. Against both the conservative movement and the liberal establishment, it identifies the radical left, or Jacobins, as the force capable of ending plutocratic rule. Clinton therefore marks one boundary of the argument, but not its final enemy: she is the familiar political face of an order that Trump, in the book’s interpretation, does not overthrow so much as embody more openly.