The Mass Strike and the 2018 Election: Executive Intelligence Review; Volume 45, Issue 41 (en Inglés)
Reseña del libro "The Mass Strike and the 2018 Election: Executive Intelligence Review; Volume 45, Issue 41 (en Inglés)"
Oct. 7—Those like Hillary Clinton who have never understood what happened in the 2016 election, naturally expect (and hope) that the 2018 midterms will mark a return to “normal” U.S. elections. They make nonsense predictions, like their claim that a statistic—the one that says that on average, Presidents have usually lost in midterm elections—ensures Trump will lose the House of Representatives. But nothing could be more ludicrous than to believe that any statistic from the past could control what Americans do now. It could only influence them if they were stupid enough to believe such an argument. But now, in fact, Americans generally are a lot less stupid than they were two years ago—or even two months ago. That is the real story of this election— although it is one that Hillary Clinton may never be able to understand. The name for this phenomenon is “the mass strike,” as Lyndon LaRouche constructed this argument exactly 50 years ago, basing himself on Percy Bysshe Shelley’s unfinished A Defence of Poetry of 1821, and Rosa Luxemburg’s The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions of 1906. Great works by two of humanity’s greatest leaders of the modern era. LaRouche most frequently cited a section towards the end of Shelley’s work, assuming his hearers were familiar with the writing as a whole. Describing historical periods preceding or accompanying “a great and free development of the national will” of England, Shelley wrote, “At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature.” The spread of this “power” is not precisely voluntary, and is often unnoticed by the recipients. Its immediate causes in one or another case are usually unknown— as is seen both in Shelley’s and in Luxemburg’s arguments. Indeed it most resembles a perception rather than a thought—but not a perception by the usual organs of sense. Shelley continues from the sentence quoted above, to write “The persons in whom this power resides, may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little apparent correspondence with that spirit of good of which they are the ministers. But even whilst they deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve, the power which is seated on the throne of their own soul.” If we can prevent the disaster of a Democratic House of Representatives, which would destroy the country by impeaching the President; if we can shut down Britain’s regime-change operation and put conspirators Obama, Mueller, Brennan and others in jail; and if we can use this mass-strike period to win hegemony for La- Rouche’s “Four New Laws” and New Bretton Woods system—then, under those conditions, the whole world is now entering a new period of deep-going, far-reaching positive reform, comparable to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, but far broader in its implications. National sovereignty is being brought back from the dead, at the same time that sovereign nations fully engage together to win the “common aims of mankind,”
