We are told, on the one hand, that the world is divided politically into Left and Right. Some say Left and Right are totally obsolete as concepts and should be discarded. Others say that while they have some validity, they leave out another axis.
I tend to agree with the latter group, but only recently have I come to a conclusion about what the second axis. While I am certain that is very from time to time and from place to place, I am convinced that in the West, at this time, the second axis is attitudes toward Jews and Israel. Nowhere is this more clear than in a recent post at Age of Treason, where TANSTAAFL makes a Sobranish point about Murdoch, Phillips, and Auster. That is, a very critical stance that someone like Joe Sobran or Pat Buchanan might take.
Since my mantra is "Unite the Right!" these sorts of disputes always make me a little sad, though not surprised. If rightists are united against the socialization and Islamification of the West, there should be little else to debate. In the previous sentence, "should" is of course an even flimsier word than it usually is. There is oodles and oodles to debate between the Zionist Right and the Anti-Zionist Right. The latter tends to sympathize profusely with Palestinians and loathe Winston Churchill, for example, which creates some friction with other rightists.
The left is really no different. The Anti-Zionist Left (think Vanessa Redgrave and Lyndon LaRouche) can't stand the Zionist Left. This is why the axes seem to be completely orthogonal, and well they should be. Whether Jews have a right to run Israel as an ethnostate is irrelevant to whether socialism (forced sharing) is a good idea.
My position on the respective axes can be summed up best as Neutrality and Rightism, but there is more to it than that. I could be described as a pro-white ethnopluralist. I technically belong to the Zionist Right because I think Jews do have a right to run Israel as an ethnostate, but I am also Jew-critical because the globalizing influence of American Jews is somewhat distinct from the anti-white influence of leftists. Think of me as a multi-Zionist counterpoint to multiculturalism.
I regard these positions as a potential crystal on which to build ideological discipline. To me, ideological discipline doesn't mean professing what you don't believe or condoning what you see as wicked. It means refining your positions in ways you are wholly comfortable with in order to become more in line with your true allies.
In other words, when I ask for discipline on the right I'm not asking for the anti-Zionists to praise Israel or for the Zionists to abandon it. I'm asking for someone who might criticize Israel on "sauce for the goose!" grounds to put that in neutral for a while and - and simply demand Zionist rights for gentiles. (To maintain that the Jews deserve as much of the damage from immigration and multicult as they have buffaloed Europe, Oceania, and North America into accepting is asserting an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice that I think we should move beyond.) I'm asking for someone who might assert that is Israel is the America's most important ally to reconsider whether a tiny stretch of the Mediterranean coast can be more important to the US than, say, Canada. And it goes without saying that any rightist should oppose foreign aid.
Ideological discipline need not be created with doublethink or by going against you're ethical impulses. If you're more pro- or anti-Israel (or pro- or anti-Jewish) than you are rightist, you may not be a lowlife dirtbag, but you're not my ally. If you can turn down the salience dial a little bit on your opinions about this little spot in Asia (half as many inhabitants as the Netherlands), you may find you can be a more effective rightist.