Because they hate Donald Trump
Whenever in the history of human civilization someone or a group of people with new ideas and a new vision of the world appears, they are accused of carrying out unspeakable horrors and monstrosities.
Christians, in their first period, were accused of terrible atrocities. Later, when it was the Christians who gained power, they did the same with respect to the pagans. The Knights Templar, who became extremely popular during the Middle Ages, were accused of atrocious obscene acts and then made to be slaughtered by the institutions of the time. But it is enough to look at the most recent period in our home to realize this way of acting. During the Cold War it was quite common to circulate, by the clergy and not only, the rumor that "Communists eat children" as well as, of course, many other extreme accusations. One could continue for a long time with these examples but, in the end, there is always the same modus operandi: accusing the other party of being a monster.
This was in the past and this is what is happening today, especially with the new US President Donald Trump. With Trump, in fact, the world has literally split in two: those who love him (apparently few), and those who hate him (apparently many). Those who hate him can't help but see him as a being (they can't even call him "a man") brutal, cruel, cynical, ruthless, inhumane, in short, a villain. So much so that for many he is now the Darth Vader of our days (the famous cartoonist Scottecs, in a post published the day after the inauguration of the new president, wished everyone a "Good start to the Dark Age" complete with # Trump). Obviously, by contrast, accusers generally feel righteous, wise, good.
Accusations of a moral nature are always due to the struggle to affirm one's nature and vision of the world and, moreover, from the pleasure aroused by unleashing one's aggression against an enemy. These two factors, in reality, go hand in hand because finding an enemy on which to direct one's aggression clarifies and identifies, in return, our personality and "who I am". This is why we are all constantly searching, consciously or unconsciously, for an enemy. It is as necessary as friction to be able to walk. So what characterizes those people who have found their ideal "friction" in Donald Trump?
Certainly among the first things that negatively affect those who hate the new US president there are certainly his very rude ways of him: these inevitably irritate those who, on the other hand, have identified politeness as one of the principles of civilization. Another thing that strikes and irritates - especially people who somehow consider themselves "intellectuals" - are the simple, direct and extremely pragmatic words he uses when explaining his way of acting and seeing the world. In reality, it is precisely the latter who then drastically drives away those who are usually inclined to reflect more deeply and to consider themselves "open" to the world.
Yes, because today being considered "intelligent people" coincides with having a vision in which all the peoples of the world live in perfect harmony with each other, therefore without national barriers. Consequently, by preaching Trump a completely opposite philosophy - namely, the return to the strong nation state - can only appear to them as a fool. Furthermore, there is the accusation of a part of the female world that points to him as "an exploiter of women" as well as the constant comparison with fascism and due Nazism - in addition to the fact that there is no better comparison to describe a " bad ”- to the reason that these regimes have established themselves after strong political and economic crises, thus wanting to demonstrate that today we find ourselves in the exact same conditions.
Are these accusations against Donald Trump sensible or are we also faced here with the typical power game in which one tries to assert one's part by demonizing the enemy? Apparently this time too he preferred to play the game of power. Here because.
1-The comparison with fascism and Nazism is completely nonsense and in bad faith because these regimes acted on the principle that "the strongest wins and the weakest must perish or submit" and, consequently, through the idea that we must always expand plus your own empire by subduing other peoples. These concepts are not only absent in Trump's thinking, but he even claims that the very opposite of expansionism is necessary, namely the return of US action within national borders.
2-Trump has never made any statement in which he said he wanted to remove or limit the rights of women, nor has he ever made such a thing transpire. He did make macho statements but these cannot be politically relevant until, obviously, the right and will of the other person is infringed. Excluding this, we are also here in the typical case in which one wants to demolish a certain worldview in favor of one's own.
3-The accusation made against him being closed to the world and, therefore, of wanting to demolish the dream of unifying humanity is instead in part sensible. It is only partially so because the idea of this unification is right and logical (just look at history to see that this is the process towards which nature is pushing us), but at the moment it is absolutely not feasible because it is first necessary to develop many things that are still only in an embryonic stage (such as a single language, same values, a shared history, etc.); moreover, due to the "principle of friction" that I have already mentioned, in order to feel united, humanity needs to deal with something else, and given the very low level in which astronautics is still found, it will take a few more centuries before that happens.
4-With regard to the methods, in this case the accusation is completely justified. Very "rude" ways can irritate a large part of the population to the extent that it then pushes them not to listen to proposals that, perhaps, could be sensible. But not only. These rude ways can inspire other individuals who, not having the ability and intelligence to manage them, risk committing senseless actions.
In conclusion, there is no serious reason why Donald Trump should be seen as a "monster" and his government as the one that will "end badly". One can certainly like or dislike him, but nothing beyond that. To affirm the opposite, in fact, means to play that game of power in which, by creating an enemy, one rises to forcefully affirm one's being at the expense of the opposing party. Absolutely lawful of course (life, to be lived, requires the game of power), but it is good that you become aware that you are not doing anything nobler than the opposing party.
