....the last few years in the US
The steady stream of revelations from Wikileaks and Project Veritas Action in these recent weeks have served as a rude awakening to many and as reinforcement to many others, about the depths of the putrid corruption in the ruling class establishment -- i.e., among the globalist elites who truly run the country (and, much of the Western world). In fact, the very existence of such an entrenched elite ruling class -- unaffected by and unconcerned with the demands of ethics and laws -- in an electoral democracy, outside the scrutiny of the public eye, is, to many, only now becoming clear.
....the last few years around the World
The last few years constitute a watershed moment in Western electoral democracies. Popular, typically, nativist (or, alt-right) anti-establishment movements have swept into power or have gained immense influence -- for e.g. UKIP, Sweden Democrats, AfD, Front Nationale, Jobbik, PVV. The year of Trump(ism) has brought these currents to the shores of America.
While these movements manifest typically as anti-immigrant, racist, anti-trade, protectionist, or, even neo-Nazi and neo-fascict, all of these adjectives fail to adequately characterize the anti-elitist essence and anti-globalist nature of these movements. In fact, the former adjectives are quite convenient to the elites -- who benefit most from dividing the people into warring tribes, using half-truths and subtle mischaracterizations. These movements are, first and foremost, a wholesale rejection of decades of elitist social-engineering and the over-bearing, wealth-destroying, soul-crushing rule of the established ruling class -- a closely-aligned and organic global coalition of financiers (and their political puppets and their corporate cronies), who enrich themselves by currency devaluation and destruction, and, thereby, leech off the wealth of nations.
Who or what is "the establishment"?
Over the past decade, the proliferation of the Internet and communication technologies and hacktivism has accelerated the production and consumption of real news -- at a crowd-sourced, democratized level. Some brave souls have led the way at the expense of their own livelihoods or lives -- Edward Snowden, Chelsea (formerly, Bradley) Manning, Kim Dotcom, Glenn Greenwald, Guccifer 2.0 and, of course, Julian Assange, to name a few that stand out. These sources and the vigilante citizen journalism that they inspire have beautifully served to expose the elitist agenda and their inner workings and machinations -- leading to growing anti-elitist sentiment in the US and around the world. The endless and perpetual warfare state, i.e. interventionist foreign policy, and the consequent "need" for an all-seeing, all-knowing, civil-liberties-eroding, privacy-destroying, "anti-terrorist", "anti-enemy", fear-mongering security apparatus -- i.e, for e.g., indefinite detention without jury trial, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance by the NSA at home and abroad and even more interventionist foreign policy (extrajudicial drone warfare and killings of civilians with impunity by the CIA) -- are indeed orchestrated by and are the results of the same agenda and power brokers. The agenda lives and thrives on keeping alive a perpetual cycle of chaos, insecurity, war, intervention and "security" response. Rinse, repeat.
Make no mistake -- there is only one political establishment, there is only one elitist globalist ruling class. While the Democrats seems to be exclusively and heavily implicated in the ongoing exposes, it is only because the Republican wing of the establishment dutifully and faithfully plays the part of the "opposition" -- the perfect impotent foil. No wonder, then, that Clinton is the chosen one for the DNC, the RNC and establishment elites of both parties.
The establishment is both neo-conservative and neo-liberal -- neo-conservative with respect to foreign policy and civil liberties and neo-liberal (Keynesianism and monetarism) on
domestic and global economic policy. (When required to state their ideological persuasion, one typically hears such trite euphemisms as "moderate" and "centrist").
The power brokers at the top of this global ruling class -- those who really pull the strings -- are constituted by the central banking cabal (mainly, the Fed, the BoJ, BoE, the ECB and others) -- policy making in lock-step with one another, forming, a de facto one world government.
Aside from the financiers at the top and the politicos who run the show, along with the military-industrial complex, the distortions in the market and the destruction of any effective freedom or justice in the marketplace create big crony corporations (banks, oil, pharma, food, etc.) that are initially cozy with and eventually become part and parcel of the establishment -- in the guise of the various other political-industrial complexes.
journalism and its discontents
It is understatement to say that mainstream journalism is dead because the elites find a ready and willing propaganda partner in the mainstream media (MSM) -- to enable their narrative control and consent manufacturing. In fact, it is more fundamentally true that the MSM is an integral part of this global Statist-corporatist alliance and is simply functioning as its PR arm. Even the so-called competing factions -- e.g. Fox on the right and CNN/MSNBC/TIME/Reuters/PBS/NPR on the left -- are simply putting up Kabuki theater, akin to how they keep up appearances of competition between (typically) two parties.
anti-establishment : which ideology?
The populist anti-establishment sentiment exists among people holding varying ideologies. In fact, in the current US election cycle, at least three different anti-establishment movements captured peoples' imaginations and passions -- Trump (alt-right; populist nativist progressivism), Cruz (Constitutional/libertarian conservatism) and Sanders (populist Democratic Socialist progressivism) -- and, perhaps, six, if one counted the third parties -- mainly, Johnson (progressive libertarianism), but, also, Stein (green) and Castle (traditional conservatism). (As an important aside, note how ideologically purist varieties of right-wing and left-wing thought, have been so successfully deemed "fringe" and marginalized from the parties that supposedly represent them, that movements and persons that adhere to them are now deemed "revolutionary" and apple-cart upsetting upstarts that have to rally against the moneyed "mainstream". In the case of right-libertarianism, one has observed the systematic censorship and vilification of Ron Paul and the original Tea Party movements).
Regardless of the fact that these movements were on opposing ends of different ideological spectra, they shared almost a uniform opposition to both, interventionist foreign-policy and the Federal Reserve (and all the abuses of the crony fiat monetary regime), both of which, as discussed earlier, constitute the lifeblood of the global elite.
The elitist script for this cycle was Clinton vs. Kasich (or, even, Clinton vs. Bush). They managed to crush almost all of the anti-establishment opposition -- they keyword being "almost". Trump won the nomination, to everyone's surprise, and, as of today, is not out of contention for the Presidency. The elites begin to learn that even they are not infallible or omnipotent.
the anger
Noteworthy, is the fact that popular anti-elitist anger seems always to be directed at specific persons -- whether, Bush and Cheney, Obama and Holder, or, now, the Clintons and their associates. While an extra measure of hatred is always reserved for the figureheads on the "other" side, establishment or otherwise, we are now increasingly witnessing ideological purists holding the feet to the fire, of those from one's own "traditional" political party (Bernie and Cruz being cases in point).
Speaking about the objects of popular hatred and anger, is it not clear that, even here, the media has successfully managed to exploit the vulnerable state of mind, i.e. the slight loss of mental acuity that comes with boiling rage, in order to obfuscate and muddy the issues and re-direct the anger at false homogenizations (e.g. Republicans, Democrats, the rich, the 1%) by creating false dichotomies (the 99% vs. the 1%, blacks vs. police, conservatives vs. progressives)? For e.g., notice how the progressively-minded (e.g. folks who followed Bernie, Stein and Warren) were encouraged, by the narratives in left-wing media, to not simply, and not even mainly, focus their rage on the Bushes, McCain, McConnell, Graham etc., but, instead to target their ideological opponents (i.e. Ted Cruz) with personal vitriol and hatred. Similarly, they are also encouraged to despise "the rich/the wealthy/the 1%/the captialists", and not discriminate between those who legitimately obtained their capital and wealth through work and enterprise, and those cronies who appropriated them through fraud, graft, political pull, favor-trading, easy credit and other non-productive activities.
By the same token, conservatives and libertarian-conservatives are taught/influenced by right-wing media narrative to indiscriminately hate "Democrats" and to hate, in particular, their ideological opponents -- i.e. Bernie, Warren, etc., instead of seeing the real evil clearly -- e.g. the Clinton Machine, the Chicago machine, etc.. Also, similar, they are encouraged to de-humanize and collectively disdain the so-called "welfare-queens" and "moochers", through the sanctimoniously named "work for welfare" programs, when, in reality, (a) a distinction needs to made between the truly misfortunate and the few who game the system, and (b) one has to acknowledge that the true and large-scale leeching and rape of society occurs not by the poor, but by the Fed and their crony capitalist friends.
In either case, what a waste of mass righteous indignation? The elites keep winning by keeping the masses divided into warring tribes and trying, as best as possible, to prevent civic dialogue and limited alliances between ideological opponents. (Although, encouragingly, we are seeing some rays of hope -- and, not just at the grassroots -- for e.g., the coalition between the libertarian conservatives, such Ron and Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, and libertarian progressives, such as Ron Wyden and Cory Booker, to make slow and steady legislative progress on civil liberties, foreign policy and criminal justice reform).
Now that the race has crystallized as a battle between the status quo (Clinton) and an archetypal anti-elite (Trump), the hatred and vitriol among the masses toward Clinton has reached a fevered pitch, as has the condescension and the propaganda from the elites and their friends in media, toward the masses.
While Trump(ism) is a great outlet to vent and blow off steam and Clinton, as elitism incarnate, feels like a great punching bag for directing and focussing the anger, this can, at best, only provide psychological relief and catharsis. Further, it misses the point of understanding why the world works, as it increasingly is being revealed, the way it does.
the real problem
The main point is that Clinton is not the problem and Trump (and, for that matter, Sanders, Cruz, Johnson, Stein or Castle) is not the answer, or, at best, is only part of the answer.
Clinton is only a symptom (like a sore from an underlying festering cancer) and anti-establishment movements, in general, and Trump(ism), in particular, with all its bluster and rhetoric and rage is, at best, a poor symptomatic treatment, if that (like applying a soothing balm to the sore).
The main point is that the real cancer in modern societies is the electoral democratic system and the persistent mythology of its supposed civic and socio-political excellence. Electoral democracies, of all varieties -- Constitutional, federated Republican, parliamentarian, or combinations, thereof -- incentivize and make rational the worst kind of behavior in its participants at all levels -- paternalistic, hypocritical, coercive and corrupt. The system comes built-in with perverse incentives and the impetus will always be for increasing consolidation and concentration of power and for morally hazardous behavior. The stifling of the market, the increase in the sheer number and frivolousness of "laws" and statutes, institutionalization and legitimization of an overbearing, bureaucratic, programmatic and coercive social-engineering approach to policy, and the concomitant rise of protected "too-big-to-fail" big corporations (bailouts, subsidies, lobbying power) -- i.e. the rise of corporatist cronyism, are, sadly, foregone conclusions in this system.
reflection
At this seemingly important juncture in history, let us then reflect upon and critically re-examine the proper role and nature of politico-civic institutions that govern societal interactions. Specifically, let us ponder about what kinds of systems, institutions and structures rationally dis-incentivize corruption and unethical behavior and institutionalize justice, non-coercion and voluntary relationships and flourishing human community. To this question, the following common-sense norm is offered : that uninvited and initiatory coercive force (including fraud and threat) is injustice. Of course, in the presence of complete freedom, in the marketplace of goods, services and ideas, it is reasonable to imagine and expect that, consistent with this fundamental norm, there will arise a beautiful diversity, as diverse as humanity itself, of localized common law conventions, with the specifics depending on local customs and traditions.