Of course the JBS condemns blatant anti-Semites. If they did not do so, they could not turn people into anti-Semites by posing as a legitimate organization and then exposing them to conspiracy theory.
As to the JBS' labeling of anti-Semites as collectivists, one of the sites you linked to earlier dealt with this very question: how can American right wingers label Nazism "left wing" when their is such a commonality of views, sources, etc., between palaeoconservativism (such as Birchism) and out-and-out anti-Semitism? Perhaps the Birch Society should investigate its own charges against "international bankers" and "privately-owned banking monopolies" before calling anyone else a "collectivist." That sounds an awful lot like socialism to me!
Only the American Right is "individualistic." Everywhere else in the world the Right is just as collectivist as the left, only in a different way: vertical rather than horizontal, hierarchical rather than egalitarian, organic rather than atomistic. Besides, what is more "collectivistic" and less "individualistic" than national patriotism?
The Birch Society is the pre-WWII Right's front group for brainwashing people gradually. I know there are many find people who are members, including Jewish members who (unlike gentile Birchers) are strong supporters of Israel. But the people who founded and who have run the Society for over fifty years are nutcases.
The problem with your analysis is that you engage in lowest-common-denominator reasoning.
Different types of the same thing can have materially important distinguishing features which make them incompatible with one another. For example: All humans have blood, but if you are given the wrong blood type, you die.
It is important for us to recognize materially important distinctions if we want to understand ourselves and human history correctly.
All political extremists may share common attitudes and may suffer from the same type of intellectual and moral deficiencies – but, nevertheless, they do have unique distinguishing features which render them incompatible with each other.
Consequently, they cannot be grouped together upon a political spectrum if you want to truly understand what motivates people to gravitate toward their candidates, their ideas, and their proposals and if you want to understand why a specific targeted audience becomes receptive to such candidates, ideas, and proposals.
The JBS is not (as you claim) some sort of incubator for anti-semitism. They are not “posing” as an anti- anti-semitism organization. But it IS true that an unusual number of persons who ARE anti-semitic have attached themselves to the JBS because they agree with JBS interpretations of postwar U.S. history.
You claim that there is some affinity between anti-semites and neo-nazis and the JBS — i.e. what you describe as “a commonality of views, sources, etc.”
If THAT is the single most important criterion — then YOU shall be judged by the same principle. Consequently, if I find ANY “commonality” (i.e. lowest common denominator) in something you write which links you to some noxious individual, group, or publication — then it is entirely reasonable and permissible to associate you with them.
ACTUAL prominent neo-nazi and anti-semitic individuals and organizations have a long history of denouncing the JBS as worthless and amounting to a “false flag” operation designed to “neutralize” genuine anti-communist activities. See, for example, the articles which excoriate the JBS and its leadership by Elizabeth Dilling, Eustace Mullins and Revilo Oliver (both of whom claimed that Jews ran the JBS!!), William Pierce (National Alliance and formerly American Nazi Party), George Lincoln Rockwell (founder of American Nazi Party), and many more.
And yet you say it makes no sense to label these theories as "left wing." To me it makes perfect sense to label socialist sounding theories as left wing.