This is what the journalist, writer, and communication expert Alessandro Nardone, who gained worldwide fame during the 2016 American Presidential elections, says. “The Alex Anderson case.” Those who followed the American Presidential elections eight years ago will certainly remember the young and rising Alex Anderson, who, alongside “giants” Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, was running for the nomination as President of the United States.
Fate had it that the protagonist of the political thriller “The Predestined” by Alessandro Nardone was named the same, and the author, driven by the desire to launch his novel in the English-speaking market and promote it in an original and fun way, had the brilliant idea of offering his avatar an exciting adventure in the “real” world: a real election campaign.
The operation, to say the least, was ingenious and had another ambitious goal: to demonstrate to the whole world the “hackability” of the information system. Nardone would talk about this in his book “Orwell,” in which his digital glossary defines “fake news” as follows: “False or partially true content spread to manipulate public opinion.”
The disinformation system
“Once upon a time, news could be verified meticulously,” Nardone confesses. “Today, however, being a journalist has become extremely difficult: we are bombarded daily with an enormous amount of news, we are paid little or nothing, we have very little time to assess whether the news is true or not, and in any case, in the name of the number of clicks, whoever arrives first wins.”
Indeed, it took nine months before American institutions, the media, and the general public realized that Alex Anderson – whose name is an anagram of Alessandro Nardone – was a “fake.” Just like the “fake news” in which, if we are not careful, we risk stumbling upon every day on the web and through traditional channels of information.
And now, the U.S. Presidential Elections of 2024. How much truth are the media telling us about the upcoming U.S. presidential elections, scheduled for November 5?
Not more than twenty percent. What reaches us from the so-called “mainstream” media is filtered through the lens of one-sided partisanship against Trump. They use the “framing” technique, so they either shamelessly lie or use only the part of the news that is functional to their narrative.
What is your perspective on Donald Trump and what does he represent, respectively, for conservative “patriots” and for his detractors?
For patriots, Trump is the bulwark that can “save the West” from the woke drift. For his detractors, he represents the major obstacle. Keep in mind that with his electoral victory in 2016, he effectively sanctioned the birth of this new bipolarism: on a global level, at least in the West, it’s no longer right-left but people against the establishment, patriots against globalists. Clearly, Trump’s role, for someone like myself who is conservative, represents great hope…
Biden administration assessment from political (wars, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Middle East, China), economic (inflation), social (illegal immigration), cultural (education, instruction) perspectives
A total disaster for the West. Wars: the abandonment of Afghanistan. Those images speak for themselves. A shame, a disgrace that a power like the United States will never erase from the history books. Ukraine: let’s remember the implications of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, with Burisma… And how Biden fanned the flames until the last day, pushing Putin to attack, doing the opposite of what Trump would have done, who would have instead put Putin and Zelensky at a table until they reached an agreement.
Economically, there is, in my opinion, a total lack of strategy. Even from a cultural point of view, there is total decay. And here I refer to gender ideology, which from my point of view is really something criminal because it misleads children from elementary schools with pornography and with the idea that they can change sex even without the consent of parents. These are atrocities that are hard for me to even pronounce, as a father. A total decline.
Today, after only three and a half years of Biden – which are worth as many disasters as he has caused for thirty years – the United States is a nation in decline. Just take a stroll in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the big cities run by the Democrats, to realize what I’m saying. It’s a nation in decline.
If the “democratic” balance is strongly negative, how likely do you think it is for Democrats disappointed by Biden to turn to Trump in the hope that he can do better?
Many Democrats have already stated that they will hold their noses and vote for Trump. Americans are very pragmatic: if you asked them whether they are better off now or four years ago… The problem is what has been dragging on for years: the Democrats have not been able or have not wanted to create the conditions for some credible leader to emerge. Today, if the candidates were Biden and Trump, many Democrats would either vote for Trump or not vote at all and still favor Trump.
Do you have an idea of how many of these Democrats are, percentage-wise, compared to the total?
The current situation mirrors that of 2016, with Hillary Clinton being very, very unpopular even among her electorate. Some supporters of Bernie Sanders – the primary opponent whose candidacy Clinton snatched – openly voted for Trump, and many others abstained.
What is Trump’s political program in response to the evident Democratic failure, and what, in your opinion, are his strengths and weaknesses?
Certainly, Trump has very clear ideas because he has already been in the White House. From an economic point of view, certainly the strength is to remove woke follies and fanaticism, which in this case translates into green fanaticism. Also from an energy point of view, therefore, a return to fossil fuels. And then, an economy that aims to bring companies back to the United States and discourage them from “outsourcing,” as he had already done in his first term. This way, those who invest and produce in the United States benefit, creating wealth and jobs. And again, resuming the discussion of tariffs with China. When Biden arrived, he criticized it but did not remove them: it means that Trump was right on this too. So, continue on America First. The weakness, paradoxically, is also the strength: the temptation of excessive isolationism. But Trump is a businessman, and I believe he will be able to combine America First with an international dimension, which the United States must continue to have as protagonists.
What is the “Woke Ideology” that flourished during the Democratic period, and why, in your opinion, is it not working?
The Woke ideology is a set of dictates that start from the assumption of the “politically correct”: a substantial dictatorship of minorities – LGBT, racial – applying a kind of reverse racism, also using “cancel culture.” Like the erasure of history by totalitarian regimes, for example. Advocates of woke ideology, found even in Harvard and Yale Universities, consider everything derived from Western culture from the Renaissance onwards as evil. I exaggerate to clarify and summarize the concept: history is made only by whites who subjugated blacks and women, so everything is “evil,” everything to be erased. Harvard canceling the course on the Renaissance, statues of Christopher Columbus toppled… In short, a whole series of abominations that are part of the woke ideology, which also includes gender ideology. From my point of view, this ideology represents evil, what is leading the United States to decline today. This ideology also translates negatively economically: for example, sustainability criteria for energy and the environment… The false myth of sustainability that introduces absolutely unattainable criteria for “normal” companies, which may be forced to close because they cannot comply. In the end, it always favors multinational corporations. It’s a shell game.
What scenarios do you foresee in the United States if a Democratic president who once again becomes the spokesperson for the aforementioned cultures and ideologies is elected?
In the United States, we could even come to a civil war. Yes, because… I reiterate, I am making objective observations, just listen to any Biden speech, or even read his tweets, or those of other Democratic leaders. They accuse Trump of his tones, but let’s see how they talk. They are absolutely divisive. After Trump’s triumph in Iowa, Biden did not speak of “Republican voters” but “Republican extremists.” And he, mind you, should be and speak as the President of all. So I foresee a scenario, if they were to prevail… Apocalyptic. Not to mention everything that could happen in schools because of gender ideology…
What scenarios could open up, on the other hand, with the election of an American president of Republican faith?
There are several Republican faiths. If Trump were to win, he would put traditional values back at the center of the village. From a geopolitical point of view, he would manage the conflict in Ukraine and the one in the Middle East by opening negotiation tables. Given that this would certainly be easier with Putin and Zelensky, while Hamas is known to be a terrorist organization, so… It would be a bit more complicated there.
Let’s talk a bit about Robert Kennedy Jr. Beyond the high transversal consensus he seems to enjoy, both among Democratic globalists and conservative Republicans, what are his arguments and to what extent can they make inroads into today’s globalist and conservative electorate?
Well, certainly his total aversion to the concept of “war.” There’s a very nice passage from one of his speeches that went viral online, where he says, “We’ve learned to use the word ‘war’ in every situation: the war on immigration, the war on the virus, the war on pollution…” Kennedy has focused a lot on pacifying the two electorates: this is a theme that can resonate with both groups, especially with people who are tired of this permanent civil war atmosphere that has been going on in the United States for some years now. In recent years, in fact, we have acquired the form mentis induced by the web. “Polarization,” the phenomenon that characterizes our time, leads us to consider those who think differently from us not as someone with different ideas but as a real enemy. So, we drift further apart and understand each other less and less. Mainstream media, in fact, talk about a certain topic using a certain line. A frame is established, within which to discuss that given topic. And behold, anyone who steps out of that frame is labeled as “anti-system,” “homophobic,” “fascist,” and so on.
What challenges should the digital character “Alex Anderson” face today in his election campaign compared to his 2016 run? Is the information system still as crackable, regarding the infiltration and subsequent spread of fake news, or has anything changed since then?
You raised a huge issue. His candidacy would be unrepeatable, as in 2016. The challenge of information has become even more difficult because in these years, we have understood – and the rest of the interview partly testifies to it – that the real spreaders of fake news are ultimately the traditional media, not the so-called “conspiracy theorists.” In some cases, those are the “useful idiots” serving the mainstream media. So, the real challenge being played out is that of information and communication.
So, in Europe, we would get about 20% true news?
When it goes well! I can sign and subscribe to that.
What arrows would Alex Anderson have in his quiver, and how would he convince Trump supporters to vote for him instead of reaffirming their trust in the author of the motto “Make America Great Again”?
Certainly, age. A greater contemporaneity and awareness of the needs of the new generations, and also a greater guarantee of projecting the United States into the future. This could be his competitive value. With all due respect for Trump and his agenda, Alex would propose himself as a newer alternative and also free from the heavyweight that, for better or worse, Trump carries on his shoulders.
Is there anything you would like to add to conclude our conversation?
In the end, in my opinion, the common thread of everything is coherence. Coherence and respect for others’ ideas are two elements that are increasingly lacking in public debate. And this does not happen by chance but because someone wants it… After all, the Romans taught us with “Divide et impera”… From my point of view, there are many more things that unite human beings. If we asked questions like: “Do you agree that everyone should live in prosperity? … That there should be no wars? … That our cities should be safe? … That healthcare should work?” Who could tell you no? No one. It also depends on how you pose the questions. Then, in the end, we always come back there. That’s why I insist on the importance of information and communication. Because they ultimately determine the course of history.”