Some items of controversy with the CEC in Australia. Larouche published it as:
http://newsblaze.com/story/200912121.../topstory.html
In extensive coverage beginning on its front page, and continuing in an additional article, and in its lead editorial, Rupert Murdoch's Weekend Australian today waxed hysterical that senior politicians in Australia might be listening to American statesman and physical economist Lyndon LaRouche, and to his Australian associates in the Citizens Electoral Council.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/poli...-1225809560799
BARNABY Joyce's views about limiting foreign investment, the possibility of the US defaulting on its loans and the fraud behind climate change are an echo of the platform of one of Australia's most extreme right-wing groups, the Citizens Electoral Council.
The CEC are the Australian disciples of US far-right figure Lyndon LaRouche, and while the CEC struggles to make an impact on the broader electoral scene in Australia, it has a strong following in the part of rural Queensland from where Senator Joyce comes.
The CEC's Australian head, Craig Isherwood, who is based in Melbourne but first got involved with the CEC while living in Kingaroy in the 1980s, said yesterday that Senator Joyce was on the party's mailing list.
"We've also got a lot of supporters in western Queensland and they run into Barnaby all the time -- I'm sure they give him our material and talk to him about it," said Mr Isherwood.
"There's nothing direct with Barnaby, but indirectly, we all run in the same paddock." [...]
While some -- but by no means all -- CEC members may see Barnaby Joyce as a fellow traveller, there is widespread antagonism towards Turnbull, who is described on the organisation's website as "Goldman Sachs Turnbull". The CEC's predecessor, the League of Rights, was strong in rural Queensland throughout most of the last century.
..
Some more discussion found here.:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/11...rang-politics/
AND
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/arc...-rouche-again/
one small comment that I find curious from that site:
<i>Well if we look at CEC Australia which has distanced itself from the La Rouchies but is still right..this is their agenda</i>
That does not compute with my (admittedly perfunctorary) looks at the CEC, but whatever. To wit, a response comment there.
<i>The CEC hasn’t distanced itself very far from La Rouche. I just picked up the latest copy of their “newspaper”, The New Citizen, and both the front page articles have “La Rouche” in the headline.</i>
One bottom line, though, as always:
<i>One sad thing about the La Rouche nutters is that sometimes they attack policies or organisations that ought to be attacked, but because they talk such nonsense and because they are nutters, to be attacked by them does nothing but confer some sort of credibility.</i>
..............................
The Mises Institute takes issue with Paul Krugman, calls Krugman's Economics closer to Larouchism than their brand of Libertarianism -- which, I suppose, is probably true enough so far as that goes.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/011217.asp
............................
Here is a fascinating Doomsday fantasy by Russian Professor Igor Panarin.
http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/obama...for-civil-war/
Igor Panarin received this sort of "end of the hour 15 seconds clip" media attention one year ago, when a long standing decades-old prediction that the United States would split up into several states and be absorbed by other nations was thrown out as a "wacky" edge of where Doomsday predictions following, sort of kind of but not really, the bleak following of recent dire economic news. The Wall Street Journal covered him here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
Looking at the map of America's disintegration, even in the world of Paranoid Fantasies, the splits would not make sense.
I bring this appearance by Igor Panarin up because Lyndon Larouche's appearances on "Russia Today" happen to be a propaganda ploy to convince their members (and Larouche himself, I guess) that the man has credibility in Russia. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghDyibtXtn0
AND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m5cbO0Yda8
Watching the first link there (and I only finally got around to watching it in the wake of seeing the Panarin link), I get the distinct impression that the tv host gave up on him middle of the way in, and basically hastened his appearance to the conclusion. Larouche fares better, I guess(?) in his earlier appearance where he validates the Russian government's position with its military actions in Georgia. (Also gets described as "American Economist, Philosopher, and Political Activist"). I suspect something akin to what you saw in the documentary "The Control Room" regarding al Jazeera, where the executive for al Jazeera told a man who scheduled Jeffrey Steinberg off for putting on "just some crazy activist."
The other item of note from "Russia Today" comes from watching the Lyndon Larouche movement's attempts to frame the wikipedia articles relating to Larouche, they took great stock in the appearance of an old Soviet functionary (Menshikov, I guess his name was) on "Russia TV" -- created a wikipedia article devoted to Menshikov just to cite him in a wikipedia article, because he referenced the American Economist Lyndon Larouche and his predictions of Economic Collapse on "Russia Today."
Liberal radio host Thom Hartman reports that he's ended up on Russia Today about once a week lately, where we see his opinions regarding Afghanistan more or less serving to validate their editorial purview. It should be noted that you will not find a concerted attempt at his wikipedia article for "Thom Hartmann" to get the fact that he regularly appears on "Russia Today" as a grand validator of Hartmann's place in the Russian political structure. Nor, for that matter, the appearances of Alex Jones -- who looking down the youtube clips I see also has made a few appearances.