We've seen, since the presidential election, a flow of political power from the Democrats and the Far Left to the Republicans and the Far Right. One could call it a displacement of power. The Far Left, at the moment, is resisting this process, as are Trump's opponents on the Right - the 'Never Trump' Republicans - but little can be done about it. Temporary stays in the lower courts on Trump's executive orders, left-wing riots, protests bordering on riots at Republican town hall meetings - none of this alters the fact that it is Trump, and not the radicals of the Democratic Party, who is the one wielding the power. Sovereignty has passed from the hands of the Left to those of the Right. In the chapter 'The Law of Constancy of Intra-Organismic Power' in Imperium, Yockey explains how
In any organism, for it is an existential law of every organism that: The power within an organism is constant, and if individuals, groups, or ideas within the organism are diminished in power, some other individuals, groups, or ideas are increased in power by that amount.
When this law is in abeyance, the political organism will shrivel up and die. It will cease to exist as an independent political unit, and become a vassal of other powers - as what happened to certain Latin American countries in the first half of the twentieth century:
This Law of Constancy of Intra-Organismic Power is existential, for if a diminution of
power in one place within does not pass elsewhere within the organism, the organism is sickened, weaker, and may have lost its political existence as an independent unit. The history of South America from 1900 to 1950 is rich in examples of triumphant revolutions against regimes that stripped them of power— which then moved to the United States of North America, and as long as that condition continued, the country in which such a revolution had occurred was a colony of Yanqui imperialismo.
So the fact that power has been displaced from the Far Left to Trump shows that the political organism of America - or rather, the US / UK / Israel axis - finds itself in good condition and ruddy health.
The question is, how do we - and by 'we', I mean we 'Neo-Nazis' and 'White Supremacists' - benefit? It's true that the Trump administration will provide those of us in America with protective cover. But Trump's unforeseen success has presented us with a number of quandaries.
Historically, we are tasked with a dual mission: to undermine the existing liberal constitutional order, wherever it can be found, and to insert our leaders into the breach and assume total power. The Far Left operates in a similar way, and just like the Far Left, we take recourse to extra-parliamentary methods because we can't win by following the rules. No 'American Nazi Party', no 'White People's Party of America', will ever win an election, and neither will any 'American Worker's Revolutionary Party'. Most of the Far Left understands this, which is why it has spent so much time - decades, in fact - infiltrating the Democratic Party. Its efforts bore fruit when Obama, a covert, soft Marxist, was elected and set about his program of bringing 'fundamental change' to America.
But the Obama administration, 2009-2016, ended up splitting the Far Left, which devolved into two factions: one, a 'Menshevik' faction which supported Obama, another, a 'Bolshevik' faction which opposed him. The Mensheviks took a pragmatic approach and counselled patience to the Left; the Bolsheviks demanded more and chastised Obama for not going far enough... (We saw evidence of this split in the 2016 Democratic primaries: Clinton ran as a Menshevik, Sanders as a Bolshevik).
This recent history raises the disturbing possibility that we on the Far Right in 2017 will end up following in the footsteps of the Far Left in 2009: some of us will take the Menshevik position, others the Bolshevik. And I can say already that the Mensheviks shall outnumber the Bolsheviks. Many of us will be loath to criticise Trump and few will have the gumption to challenge him and the Republican Party for power.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that we, historically, have always attacked the Left more than the Right - and gained more benefits from doing so - but this time around, the American Right has, on the surface of it, triumphed over the Left, and triumphed nearly everywhere at the state and federal level. Our traditional constituency - the white working class - has left the Democrats and gone over to Trump; they are willing to follow the rules, just as Trump did, and to abide by the existing constitutional order (so much for the Marxist theory of the working class as agents of revolutionary change). They won't be coming over to our side - the Alt Right, Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, KKK, skinhead side - any time soon. But were we to upbraid them for their pusillanimity, we would be making the same mistake as the Left, which, through its hectoring and haranguing of the white working class, drove that class into the arms of the Right.
The result of all this is that at first sight, Trump's victory has pulled the rug from under us: for a hundred years, we on the Far Right have made allegations of a far-reaching communist conspiracy (which threatens the foundations of our republics) a staple of our propaganda; but, in America at least, communism has been vanquished with the recent elections - or has it? The Far Left has been launching several probing attacks - the recent riots in New York and California number among them - to test the limits of Trump's authority. We see quite a few pockets of resistance to Trump - in the judiciary of the appellate courts, in the 'blue' states of New York, Washington, California... It remains an open question as to whether those cracks will widen and become fissures - will the resistance in those states become 'political', in Yockey and Schmitt's understanding of the word? Sooner or later, Trump will need to exert his authority over the resisting elements of the Left - the Antifa rioters, the liberal judges, the blue state governors, the leftist activist mobs at the Republican town hall meetings... Otherwise, a civil war could break out.
But, for our purposes, it would be far better for the American Far Right to concentrate for the time being on the difficult sectors - the 'blue' state, liberal-Marxist strongholds such as New York and California. For instance, the Far Right could make the compelling argument that California's woes (such as immigration) are caused by the existing constitutional order in that state, an order which needs to be destroyed and replaced... A white nationalist governor should be installed and the Californian state legislature should be abolished. Or perhaps the legislature could remain but only one party - a Far Right and nationalist party - should be allowed to run in elections. (California is a one party state now anyway, and my proposed alteration will only formalise the existing arrangement). Now, these posited goals may not be achieved, but an open statement of them will serve to distinguish the white nationalist / Neo-Nazi party from the Republican Party, and the American Far Right will have taken its first step towards fascism. The battle for California would be underway, and fascism thrives on battles.
Recent events have, paradoxically enough, given Americans on the Right a renewed appreciation of fascism. To explain. Fascism didn't come about simply because a bunch of right-wing Europeans wanted to organise themselves in a military fashion and wear smart uniforms: it came about as a response to left-wing violence. The first paramilitaries were formed as bodyguards and march stewards, that is, to protect the party leadership, and the rank and file, from the Left. The uniforms, the military discipline and organisation, the martial spirit, the camaraderie, the willingness to risk life and limb, all followed as a matter of course. Ever since the assault on Richard Spencer and the riot at Berkeley, the American Far Right - even the 'yellowfashie' Far Right represented by Greg Johnson - has come to recognise this; they now understand, perhaps for the first time, why the fascists did what they did.
Events have given the American Far Right the opportunity to smuggle in fascism by the back door. 'Fashie'-looking leaders such as Richard Spencer and Nathan Damigo - both of whom are accused of being Neo-Nazi anyway - could be assigned a uniformed bodyguard skilled in self-defence and street-fighting tactics.
The essential thing is that the American Far Right must not simply revive the uniforms and symbols of the past, as George Lincoln Rockwell did and Gary Raikes (of the New British Union) is doing. Even the use of the words 'fascist' and 'Nazi' and 'National Socialist' should be discouraged because they are redolent of the past.
This isn't to say that the ideology of Hitler, Mussolini, Evola, Yockey, should be repudiated. No, the main thing is that we need to change the emphasis from how the fascists looked to what they did. And we can duplicate what they did quite easily.