Here's a puzzler for those Brother Nathanael devotees who can always be relied upon to proffer an explanation for why International Jєωry never gets round to squashing its errant Jєω brother, dear old Nate.

Have a look at this article. Its second sentence points to a massive Israeli spamming attack on The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald's website. This is a prime example of what Jєωs do to those they perceive as enemies. Nothing melodramatic, nothing involving press statements complaining of "never-ending hate," no coded language in phone calls or e-mails—just the figurative equivalent of a public attempt to kneecap an opponent who has gotten too much traction. Even brave, principled men who are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the sake of truth have buckled to the pressure when they learn that the price for allowing their children to have a career in some field other than trash collection is silence and repentance.

So tell me, what threats have been leveled against Nathanael? What has he had to sacrifice (other than a shave and a decent suit) in order to reveal Jєωιѕн perfidy?

I await a citation to the passage or passages in the тαℓмυd that prohibit Jєωs from waging bogus-service attacks on a fellow Jєω who has betrayed the holy Tribe. There must be at least one. If no one here can manage to locate that one passage, why not apply directly to Brother Bozo for the citation? Surely he can explain his success at avoiding what David Irving, Bradley Smith, Kevin MacDonald, and countless others have failed to avoid.

I wouldn't take this stuff so seriously.  

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest

Well, well, well...

This is not a surprise to me, the original OP, that this thread has turned into the usual point-fingers-and-shout match typical of Cathinfo fame. No, not at all am I surprised and it proves to me a point that you all would find interesting if you had the heart to listen to an opinion that is unlike your own.

I want to make a few points, so listen well, lectore:

a) It is hardly surprising to me that there are staunch supporters of this heretic on this forum, for this is a forum full of those who love to cause strife, whose pride knows no bound and is a stench unto heaven itself; a forum who allows women to be the callers of Catholic crusades and allows them to freely teach and to suppose an authority that in fact has never been granted to them: to teach and to have authority over men; a forum that would rather spend hours trying to justify tobacco use and the occult arts in a book written by a pseudo-Catholic than coming together to end a common malady; a forum that focuses on the differences rather than the similarities that we have in order to overcome the common enemy in those broods of vipers, the rejected ones! A forum that, as far as I have seen, never desires to gather together into one, unilateral entity to tackle the problem head on. Indeed, most of the time when I post here there is always the lurker who creeps out of the shadows in order to rain fire and brimstone on a sentence said in passing. Truly straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

b) Exactly why do you think we are in this crisis at the moment? Well, because there are people out there who would just want to argue about just about anything. "I am right and you are wrong." The point I made was quite clear, I think. Brother Nathaniel, being a heretic, should be denounced as one and any action that he makes that is uncharitable should be called out as such. We should even be doing this among our fellow brethren as well. Any information acquired from him should be just that: information. We should denounce this individual as a pervader of heresy by his very association with an entity that claims to be the one true Church: which in and of itself is enough for me to love the sinner but hate the sin, to use a common colloquial phrase. May God save this man and others from the error he believes in.

c) A word of advice for those who might listen: as long as we remain separated, as long as we go on as a machine whose parts have been ripped from it, as long as we remain in the present state of strife and contention: NO AMOUNT OF ARGUING IS GOING TO SAVE YOU FROM THE INEVITABLE. You can argue all you want, you can argue all the way to the ends of the Earth: you can argue in the depths of hell but any and all arguing that is perpetrated by you and others will never solve this crisis we are in. Only unification and coming together as Catholics will.

We will fail unless we come together. Unless we all put a stop to this.

It will end. It just takes teamwork and acting in a unilateral fashion. THAT'S IT.

Sorry, But you are dead wrong.
Brother Nathaniel is not a  'heretic' But a Schismatic.

They have Valid Sacraments and a Valid mass. Orthodox always have. Some have been reunited with The Church. The Maronites for example.

Some Charity would go a long way for you and others.
Ive read Brother Nathaniel for years and havent found anything suspect in his writings or actions. Though Im not a Putin Fan.
He is a man of action and principle and I commend him for that.

Far as the charge of heresy, The Vatican itself and those leading it, have or are falling also into that category. We have no room to talk...
Fighting Serves the J EW.  We need to Unite, as Christians and Brothers.

A) Maronites never left the Church, they've been with Her since the days of the Apostles.

B) The Orthodox are heretics. They deny the dogma of Our Lady's Assumption and the most Immaculate Conception - add to that infallibility of the pope.

You are right about the Maronites, but there have been other Eastern rite Catholics, once called schismatics, now in communion with The Church, Chaldeans for example..

On The Orthodox, you are incorrect however.


"The Orthodox Church calls Mary all-holy, immaculate, free from actual sin. The Orthodox Church has never made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter of the Immaculate Conception.

In the past, individual Orthodox theologians have made statements that, if not definitively affirming the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception, at any rate closely approach it.
 But since 1854, the great majority of Orthodox reject it as necessary; as implying a false understanding of original sin; as suspecting the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam and Eve, putting her in a different class.
 However, if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe it, he could not be termed a heretic for doing so."

Bishop Kallistos is a Spaulding Lecturer of Eastern Christianity at Oxford University of England. He has not been "corrected" by his Patriarchs (presently, His Holiness Bartholomew), or the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for his words.
Other Orthodox theologians have stated that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception might be an unrevealed mystery within the Church; that is, a "theologeuma". There has never been a definitive pronouncement by the seven original Ecuмenical Councils (the only ones Eastern Orthodoxy recognize as "Ecuмenical") declaring this long-known theology a heresy.


 The Eastern & Oriental Orthodox claim that dogma must be Christ-centered, but one can easily sidestep such by simply asking if the perpetual virginity of Mary is Christ-centered (Mary's perpetual virginity after Jesus' birth was proclaimed as dogma for the Catholic Church at the Third Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople of AD 681). Within the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, we often proclaim "ever-Virgin Mary", which adds a liturgical tradition to this subject.



The reasons we are not united are and were political, not doctrinal, not theological  for the most part.
Leavening of bread and the word filoque.
I suspect power players were behind this.....to divide and conquer.
Even the catechism make no prouncements such as you have of there being any heresy among the Orthodox.  YOU really should show more humbleness and charity towards your Eastern Brothers.

Does anyone here think Brother Nathaniel is just some kind wearing a funny costume and putting on a show?

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Regarding the statement that "Jєωs fear him", how do you know this? Is there a link to information that would explain it? I ask sincerely, though my instincts tell me to stay away from Brother, yet pray for him.

You are asking the right questions. One needs to be either a knave or a fool to claim with a straight face that Nathanael represents any sort of threat to Jєωιѕн dominance of society, government, or the overall media narrative. If he were a threat to the Jєωs, they would crush him like a bug in less time than it is taking me to type these words.

Are you perhaps old enough to recall the situation of David Irving back in the seventies and eighties? Irving made an enormous impression on the (not easily impressed) English-speaking historians of World War II with his research and discoveries (look up the Hitler diaries controversy, for example). The important military historian John Keegan (+2012) wrote that Irving had uncovered more primary German sources than all other World War II historians combined. Yet look what Jєωιѕн power did to Irving once they decided he could do the Tribe harm. His book contracts were canceled. Books of his in print and selling well were suddenly remaindered. Saint Martin's Press was pressured not simply to break a contract for a book about Goebbels—at great expense to them, as they had to pay Irving a substantial advance—but to pulp several thousand copies of the book already boxed and ready for shipment, at a cost running to six figures. The Jєωs would not even allow the press to sell the books to overseas jobbers or consign them out for landfill. No! They had to be utterly destroyed so that no one (aside from Irving himself) could ever see a work the Jєωs regarded as inimical.

Ultimately, as almost everyone knows, the Jєωs managed to get Irving imprisoned in criminally degrading conditions in Austria on a charge of h0Ɩ0cαųst denial—a charge, incidentally, of which he was not even guilty. It took what few supporters he had fully a year to get him released; he certainly got no help from those brave defenders of the free speech of, say, Roman Polanski at the New York Times, the Guardian, or MSNBC. What's more, now Wikipedia gets to claim that his conviction "proves" that Irving is an immoral and wicked h0Ɩ0cαųst denier!

Nowadays, of course, Irving virtually sells books off the back of a pickup truck. He travels around from place to place in the utmost secrecy, as much for the sake of the people who rent him speaking facilities as for his own protection.

This is what Jєωs can do and have done to an important historian with a sizable public profile. If "Brother" Nathanael mattered to them a tenth as much as Irving does and did, Nathanael would be reduced to doing selfies rather than YouTube videos.

There is excellent reason to regard him as controlled opposition. Beware!

Very good points, claudel. And we all know what happened to Mel Gibson.

I don't know if "Brother Nathanael" still does this because I haven't watched him in a while, but in the past he would insert salacious images into his videos. That and his ridiculous mannerisms and behavior made me tune out.

The guy's a clown. Case in point:

I like listening to him but I know all to well his race ( putting a saddle on  a cow dosent make it a racehorse) and the heresy of his new fond faith