by Emmet Scott

To describe the media reaction to Donald’s Trump’s victory as hysterical is almost an understatement. The relentless demonization of the man, in newspapers, on television, on the internet, among politicians, among Hollywood celebrities and among academics, is truly without precedent. Look at a newspaper or log onto the internet and you’ll immediately be faced with a barrage of screaming headlines telling you how horrible the guy is. It really is weird.

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the establishment is angling for some way — any way — to get rid of Trump. There is no question, for example, that they have created and are creating a climate of hate which could well lead to his assassination. Failing that, it seems that they’d like to trigger some form of general uprising, with the aim of making the country ungovernable and thereby facilitating a legal process to force his resignation. Their motto seems to be: Whatever it takes, get rid of him.

This is all very good news for those who voted for Trump on the understanding that he was not just another establishment puppet: that he was his own man, a man who would represent the interests of the working people for whom he spoke during the campaign and who eventually put him into the White House.

But how to explain the establishment’s almost deranged hatred? There is no question that some vested interests will be harmed by his policies. Legislation against outsourcing of jobs abroad will unquestionably cut profits for many of the multinational corporations. On the other hand, his promise to massively cut Obama-era regulations has the potential to provide a great boost to industry and to profits — as stock market optimism in the immediate aftermath of his election would suggest. And if his promise to put an end to America’s wars abroad has alarmed the arms manufacturers, his promise to massively increase America’s military strength should certainly allay their fears. He has, to date (unfortunately) made no sign of ending the alliance with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, the biggest consumers of American-made military hardware.

So the men with the big money will probably not be harmed by his government; they might even prosper. Yet these are the very people who hate him: The useful idiots protesting and rioting in the streets have been goaded into action by media hysteria. And the media is the establishment (Not that the protesters are themselves members of the working classes: The great majority are students and state-employed ‘professionals’ of one sort or another).

Whence, then, comes the hatred? Left-wing ideology — specifically gender-driven left-wing ideology — is certainly behind a lot of it. The protesters and the media are not so much worried about loss of welfare benefits or any other economic issue as they are about abortion and LGBT ‘rights’ — which they fear will be eroded under Trump. A recent article by Gavin McInnis, entitled “Normalizing Degeneracy” has pointed out that several of the organizers of anti-Trump demonstrations have convictions for pedophile offences. In McInnis’ opinion, these and many others of Trump’s opponents wish to continue the cultural revolution ongoing under the Obama administration, tear down the last vestiges of Christian morality, and legalize all forms of deviance, including pedophilia.

I believe that McInnis is right; that most of the opposition to Trump has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional left-wing concerns, such as working-class poverty, and is almost entirely driven by sexual and sex-related issues. His opponents fear losing the culture-war gains they made under Obama. However, I would suggest that many members of the establishment have, in addition, something very personal to fear from the Trump administration: For it would appear that some of America’s most powerful people have been involved in activities which if brought into the public forum would utterly destroy them, not only professionally, but also personally.

For many years now rumors about a massive pedophile ring operating among the upper echelons of the Hollywood elite have been rife. That such a network does exist has been confirmed by several of the world’s most respected child (or former child) actors. The televised testimony of Corey Feldman, for one, can be viewed by anyone on YouTube; whilst similar statements have been made by Elijah Wood and several others, and it is fairly clear that sexual abuse of children in Hollywood has been a problem for many years — one that has been continually brushed under the carpet by an extremely powerful elite. Only occasionally have perpetrators been accused in public — as was Roman Polanski in 1977 — and even less commonly have such persons been brought to justice.

But the Hollywood elite, it would seem, are only one part of the establishment up to their necks in this kind of behavior. We know that Bill Clinton made twenty-six journeys on Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious ‘Lolita Express’ — the aircraft which brought Epstein’s guests to parties on his Caribbean island and other destinations where underage girls were regularly on the menu. Recent revelations about Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Hillary Clinton’s personal assistant Huma Abedin, point in the same direction. Then of course we have the leaked Podesta emails and the whole ‘Pizzagate’ affair. If there is any truth at all in the idea that the coded language used in these emails refers to the sexual abuse of underage children, then it would appear that a substantial segment of the Democratic Party (as well apparently as some members of the Republican Party) are active pedophiles.

Almost all of the mainstream media in the United States are vociferous Democrat partisans. We know from similar events in Britain and elsewhere that the media and the establishment in general protect powerful child abusers almost as a matter of course. Could it be that the Pizzagate allegations are true and that the Democrats and their media friends and colleagues fear criminal prosecution by an administration that does not ‘play by the rules’ of the elitist game?

Emmet Scott is the author of Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy and The Impact of Islam. For his previous essays, see the Emmet Scott Archives.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/02/anti-trump-hysteria-what-is-the-establishment-afraid-of/