The US is launching a new information attack against Russia. Simply "killer" arguments have already been hurled. They are trying to build for Moscow the reputation of being a global center for ultra-right movements in the mass consciousness of Western audiences. In doing so, those circles standing behind the Washington Democrats are trying to kill two birds with one stone - one in foreign policy, and the other in domestic politics.

Hillary Clinton has called the Russian government the "grand godfathers of global far-right nationalism." The Democrats' candidate made such a statement during a campaign speech in Nevada, where the ex-Secretary of State stunned her supporters by saying that far-right ideas are becoming the most popular in the world, mentioning, in particular, the founder of the British United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), Nigel Farage. She drew parallels between Farage and her main competitor in the presidential race, Donald Trump. Clinton proclaimed Russian President Vladimir Putin to be the "mentor" of both prominent conservatives.

Of course, that the Democratic Party candidate considers the leader of Russia to be so almighty that he can "assign" the leaders of leading parties in the Western world is very flattering for our country. But Clinton's words hide at least two falsities: (1) that Moscow has a decisive influence on the international political processes of Western countries, and (2) that modern conservatives and traditionalists can be called far right.

The popular American publication Huffington Post then published an article that hurled exactly the same accusations against the Russian government and Western traditionalist politicians as Clinton's speech. The HP article has no direct references to Clinton's speech, but the striking unanimity of its author with the Democrats' candidate looks curious enough.

All the questions disappear if one merely takes a look at the biography of the author. This senior analyst from the famous neoliberal organization People for the American Way, Brian Tashman, lives off of the "donations" of the famous exchange speculator George Soros - the same man who once basically gave orders to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on how the American State Department should behave in the Balkans. This is the same person who gave a record-breaking public donation to the organization of Hillary's election campaign.

Tashman accuses Trump of turning the Republican Party into the engine of an "alternative right" movement which neoliberals call "reactionary" and "populist" as well as, of course, "racist," "xenophobic," "anti-semitic," and "misogynistic."

In addition to Trump, Tashman includes in the list of the increasingly popular "alternative right" the French Marine Le Pen and the Dutch Geert Wilders. This author on Soros' payroll blames Moscow for having "sponsored a global right-wing effort to portray the U.S. and Europe as victims of cultural rot." In Tashman's opinion, Russia has simultaneously brought Trump and other conservatives into the political mainstream while it is "ravaging" the civilian population of Syria and provoking both migration and anti-immigration sentiment.

One would like to remind this esteemed "senior analyst" that the migration crisis in the Middle East and Europe began long before Russia's intervention in the war in Syria. It all began with the so-called "Arab Spring" that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and the roofs over the heads of millions. And it was none other than the neoliberal authorities in the US and European countries that staged the "Arab Spring." It's not Moscow or Syrian troops that are beheading Syrian children, but the US's "friends" among the so-called "moderate opposition." But maybe these are just details.

The main point is that this is all an attempt by the American neoliberals to present Moscow as all but the center of world fascism (the terms "ultra-right" and "radical right" are strongly associated with fascism and Nazism in mass consciousness). At the same time, they want to portray Donald Trump, the one swinging at the undivided rule of the neo-liberals in the US, as an "ultra-right henchman of Russia."

But let's think logically. What are the main characteristics of European ultra-right discourse and what if any of this can be called characteristic for modern Russia?

First, there is supremacism, i.e., the belief that a certain race, type, heredity, ethnic group, religion, or gender gives one identifying with such the right to dominate, control, or manipulate those who do not identify as such.

Who can find something of the sort in multinational Russia, where support and assistance is available to and used by all major religions and every effort is made to preserve traditional cultures? And is one of the highest state organs, the Federation Council, not headed by a woman?

Accordingly, it is foolish to accuse Russia of racism, radical nationalism or xenophobia. It's funny, but in the elections to the State Duma, the militant radical nationalists have somehow found themselves in the ranks of the so-called "non-systemic opposition" which identifies with neoliberal and pro-Western ideas.

But let's continue our overview of the political characteristics of far-right fascist parties and movements.

Secondly, there is anti-communism...well, what can I say? Polls confirm that no less than half of people who support the current Russian government are people who maintain leftist views. In Russia, the Communist Party has a powerful faction in parliament and manages to put its governors and mayors up in elections. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a product of the Soviet KGB, called the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe. Something here doesn't quite sit right with anti-communism.

Let's move on to the supposed contempt for electoral democracy. This is especially meant to be about us.

Faith in the rule of elites and natural social hierarchy is not a laughing matter. And advocating genocide? - Give an example from Russian history, huh?

As for authoritarianism and dictatorship, here Western "experts" love to frolic with loaded judgements in talking about a country in which a significant portion of parliament and a number of large cities and regions are actually controlled by the opposition and where media representing the radical opposition operates - they're just not serious.

Thus, there are no objective signs that Russia is an "ultra-right" state.

But there is still the moral factor. And here we cannot forget that Russians explicitly identify as the victors of the anti-fascist struggle in the Great Patriotic War and consider themselves to be this struggle's heirs. The word "fascist" itself, just like 70 years ago, is abusive and offensive to Russians.

And if Soros and Clinton are so itching to find "ulta-rightists," then they don't have to look too far. On the border with Russia is a ruling regime strongly supported by official Washington which bans communism, demolishes monuments to the victors over Nazism, names streets in honor of SS commanders, uses symbols of the Third Reich at the official level, and promotes supremacism and chauvinism in calling a significant part of their country's own population "subhumans" and "bugs." You won't find anything like this among respectable Austrian, French or British conservatives.
kiev torches

1930s 'European values' return to Ukraine, courtesy of Washington, DC
What Clinton and Soros are trying to pass off as "right-wing radicalism" is nothing more than commitment to traditional values. This is an attempt to save face amidst neoliberal totalitarianism aimed at destroying traditions and creating a single global political space subject to the US.

Donald Trump has made it quite clear that he does not wish to participate in this monstrous, essentially fascist experiment putting one's own people and state at stake. This puts the neoliberals who already see themselves as the masters of the universe in a fit of real rage.

Trump is by no means a creature of Russia and perhaps not even an absolute friend of Moscow. He is simply an American patriot who believes that his country should not be drawn into a doubtful, cannibalistic adventure. In thinking so, he is similar to many other conservative politicians.
They will not "work for Russia." And they have no obligation to be loyal to us. Their value lies in something else. Their value to us is that they can be worked with to bring the world back to the "rules of the game" and, thanks to this, establish constructive, pragmatic cooperation and solve a number of global problems. Working with those who see you as an equal is much more pleasant than working with those who are eager to take you by the neck.

Never believe the neoliberals when they say that "the US doesn't need Moscow" and that "weak" Russia is too pretentious and arrogant. In 2011, when Hillary Clinton was still Secretary of State, she closely monitored materials from RT TV and demanded that everyone return to the Cold War standards of "spreading America's message to the world." In her opinion, this was extremely necessary for the US insofar as they are losing the very information war that they imposed upon Russia.

In 2011, Clinton said: "We are in an information war and we are losing that war...the Russians have opened up an English-language network. I've seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive."

The Democrats' presidential candidate has once again shown her steadfast attention to "Kremlin propagandists" and her immediate concern with the danger of their influence. Comparing Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, she said: "Farage regularly appears on Russian propaganda programs, now he's standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee."

Clinton is trying to play on anti-Russian sentiments, but she does not speak openly of whom she has in mind. It is quite clear that she has RT in mind, however, just as it is clear that she clearly missed the fact that RT enjoys obvious popularity in the US. According to recent studies, RT is among the five most popular news channels in the US. The audience of the channel includes more than 8 million American viewers a week.

This is a clear miss by Hillary Clinton which only confirms that if she becomes president of the US, then we can be sure that all of Obama's antics were just "flowers." The real "berries" will begin when the White House is led by a person behind whose back looms the shadow of George Soros. And we must be prepared for this.