The ADL does not see The American Renaissance as a "philo-Semtic" group,
> your original point.
I doubt that its analysts would ever use the term or, perhaps, consciously think of the concept. But if you do not regard typecasting Jews as the "conscience of society" as philo-semitism, then we have a fundamental semantic disagreement. Which is not the end of the world, but should probably be our cue to stop debating it, as neither of us will convince the other.
(Is AR any sort of a "group"? Glancing at its Web site, it seems much more like a monthly magazine that hosts an annual conference.)
I fear your need to conflate the Evolian/eugenicist positions of groups like
> the American Renaissance with zionism is part of the ongoing zio-nazi debate
> which I bowed out of a long time ago.
>
I've actually read Evola (for a senior project on the Grail), but am afraid I have no idea how he factors into this. If anything, it seems to me that he would have found the eugenicism of outfits like AR distastefully materialistic, if not potentially egalitarian. Care to enlighten?
And what's the ongoing zio-nazi debate? I may have missed that one.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."