Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Brother Nathanael 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
The tyranny is wide open and it only takes a lie to keep it going. A great example of how entrained our species is and how easy it is to get a ponzi scheme through.

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:26 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10110
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
Money is the tool of choice for the ruling sociopaths. They know they have us trained to do anything for money, which makes money one of the best tools available for exercising power and control over the masses. And money nowadays is something they can mass produce at almost no cost. How much does it cost to type a number into a computer terminal, like $70,000,000,000? I bet it costs only a tiny fraction of one dollar. Is there a better return on investment to be had anywhere? I remember when a stock investment adviser who could generate 15% per year on your money was considered among the best. Try figuring the return when a few cents of your time to type eleven digits into a computer creates 70 billion in new money!

It should be evident that our fiat money system (essentially Monopoly money) is a scam of enormous proportion, and whoever controls the process of money creation is making out better than any bandit that ever lived. Money creation is now on the steeply rising part of an exponential curve, so a lot of money is being created, and it is flooding the global system. Someone is controlling the whole process, and they are not doing it for our benefit, because there is only one way for a Ponzi scheme of this magnitude to end.

Badly.



How The IMF Really Works (link)

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:19 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10110
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
Here's another one. I'm not a fan of religion, but Brother Nathanael's commentary rings true to me. I'll listen to the truth regardless of its source.




A Knock At Midnight

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:05 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
Here's another one. I'm not a fan of religion, but Brother Nathanael's commentary rings true to me. I'll listen to the truth regardless of its source.


That's the difference between you and me, Chico.

I understand the truth as an exception to the rule when it is presented by a source whose integrity had been greatly damaged or forfeited. By contrast, you endeavor to understand truths without inquiring into the source of the presentation, which then invariably results in your guessing about things as opposed to establishing things.

You believe in separating the message from the messenger, which goes against both rational and common sense because that ignores the spin given to the message by the messenger.

We need not wonder why you do this, Chico, because your fifth column mission on behalf of the sinister Zionist tribal organization (e.g. to interfere with truths by doubly supporting them in one breath and attacking them in another breath) is well-documented here and in other forums. This double agency benefits by the stripping of context. To this, removing the messenger from the message is one of the more common methods of stripping context. Indeed, discouraging specifics and encouraging generality creates divergence from the truths and that is precisely what you seek, e.g. divergence. With the messenger removed, the message becomes a general message. Good for rhetoric and polemics; but bad for establishing truths. But that is your game. So be it.

Quote:

A Knock At Midnight


Brother Nathaniel is a deep level Zionist operative. His arguments betray his Rothschild agency, Not only is the clownish presentation a solid hint of a disinformation agent ... but BN's mix of 90% truths and 10% fictions collects a lot of koolaid drinkers. One has to be especially vigilant in assessing BN's information because a lot of it is self-evident. But then he surreptitiously throws in stuff that assists the Zionists.

In the above video for example, BN legitimizes the narrative of Islamic terrorists (e.g. ISIS) when he condemns Obama for calling for the overthrow of Assad (who allegedly gives sanctuary to Christians escaping purported Islamic terror). Not only does BN endorse the intelligence-agency designed meme of fundamentalist Islam but he invokes the time-immemorial meme of victimized Christians fed to the pangs of hungry lions. IOW, he wants to push the meeting place of Christians and Muslims into the vortex of base instincts.

If that weren't enough, BN then enters the meme of race-baiting by presenting white males as an oppressed species on the brink of extinction ... overlaps this with religion-baiting by presenting the Christian religion as one besieged by Commies, homosexuals, transexuals. and atheists turning churches into taverns, etc. ... and throughout, BN speaks enough known factual truths to keep much of his targeted audience engaged.

It should be noted that BN's targeted audience never includes critical thinkers. Critical thinkers are kryptonite to our surface sermonizing Superman. Not being a critical thinker himself - his fifth column handlers would stop the carrot trucks were he to attempt critical analysis on any subject - Chico is all too happy to present this Brother Nathaniel circus phenomenon to the handful of unwitting masses that still visit this burp of a forum.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:55 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10110
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
UncleZook wrote:
You believe in separating the message from the messenger, which goes against both rational and common sense because that ignores the spin given to the message by the messenger.

I'm glad you posted this, Zook. Thank you. You really do help me out quite a bit.

Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it. If a truth is "spun" by the messenger, then it's not really the truth any more, is it.

UncleZook wrote:
In the above video for example, BN legitimizes the narrative of Islamic terrorists (e.g. ISIS) when he condemns Obama for calling for the overthrow of Assad (who allegedly gives sanctuary to Christians escaping purported Islamic terror). Not only does BN endorse the intelligence-agency designed meme of fundamentalist Islam but he invokes the time-immemorial meme of victimized Christians fed to the pangs of hungry lions. IOW, he wants to push the meeting place of Christians and Muslims into the vortex of base instincts.

Great spin, Zook! I love how you demonstrate your point above.

What Brother Nathanael is doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation, not legitimizing the misinformation we have all been subjected to concerning ISIS, Obama, Assad, Christians, Muslims, and terrorists. And by putting your spin on it, you are demonstrating your hypocrisy regarding messages and messengers.

UncleZook wrote:
It should be noted that BN's targeted audience never includes critical thinkers. Not being a critical thinker himself - his fifth column handlers would stop the carrot trucks were he to attempt critical analysis on any subject - Chico is all too happy to present this Brother Nathaniel circus phenomenon to the handful of unwitting masses that still visit this burp of a forum.

It's at times like these that I just love you, Zook! Really! I'm not being sarcastic. You are a joy!

Basically, you are saying I should only present one side of the story -- the one that has your stamp of approval.

Gotta love ya, Zook! Just gotta...

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
UncleZook wrote:
You believe in separating the message from the messenger, which goes against both rational and common sense because that ignores the spin given to the message by the messenger.

I'm glad you posted this, Zook. Thank you. You really do help me out quite a bit.

Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it. If a truth is "spun" by the messenger, then it's not really the truth any more, is it.


Established truth is established truth regardless of who speaks it. Prior to establishment, however, there are no truths, only words and the integrity of the speaker. A person with less integrity is less credible as a speaker than a person with more integrity. IOW, truths are not fixed prior to their evaluation, and a person with less integrity is more challenged to establish the truths than a person with more integrity ... and precisely because a person with less integrity is not trusted on their words alone but are burdened by their past deceptions. That is self-evident.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf found that out when he became a lunch item in a parable ... after those who initially believed the message without bias, then again for a second time without bias, became vexed by the messenger's deceptions and were determined not to hear the message without bias ever again. To wit, the messenger earned the bias that developed against him.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
In the above video for example, BN legitimizes the narrative of Islamic terrorists (e.g. ISIS) when he condemns Obama for calling for the overthrow of Assad (who allegedly gives sanctuary to Christians escaping purported Islamic terror). Not only does BN endorse the intelligence-agency designed meme of fundamentalist Islam but he invokes the time-immemorial meme of victimized Christians fed to the pangs of hungry lions. IOW, he wants to push the meeting place of Christians and Muslims into the vortex of base instincts.

Great spin, Zook! I love how you demonstrate your point above.

What Brother Nathanael is doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation, not legitimizing the misinformation we have all been subjected to concerning ISIS, Obama, Assad, Christians, Muslims, and terrorists.


Only in your obfuscations, Chico. Fact check: Brother Nathaniel was on point all the time and betrayed neither satire nor sarcasm. He was in attack mode against Obama (which is fully understandable). He was not in defend mode of the Muslims, which would have been the case had he genuinely attempted satire.

Satire, for those who are literate about things, is rarely found without a directed editorial opinion attached to it. When BN made his attack against Obama, his directed editorial opinion was to support Assad (and the purported besieged Christians) ... not to support the Muslims being wrongly inculpated by CIA/Mossad/MI6 trained and funded extremist pseudo-Muslims.

Indeed, BN was legitimizing the intelligence-agencies meme of radical Islam because, as a deeply covert Rothschild agent, BN is tasked with periodically (and surreptitiously) stoking the Clash of Civilizations meme. Division and conquest is an establishment methodology. Those who excite the various fault lines of division (e.g. race, religion, gender, class, culture, etc.) are Rothschild agents, witting and otherwise.

Quote:
And by putting your spin on it, you are demonstrating your hypocrisy regarding messages and messengers.


What you describe as my spin ... is indeed the spin of integrity.

People tend to receive my arguments because I embrace the observable facts and converge to the inevitable conclusions. People tend not to receive your arguments because you sail above the observable facts and diverge in all sorts of directions, like a party balloon slipped from the fingers of the blowhard that pumped it but could not secure it.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
It should be noted that BN's targeted audience never includes critical thinkers. Not being a critical thinker himself - his fifth column handlers would stop the carrot trucks were he to attempt critical analysis on any subject - Chico is all too happy to present this Brother Nathaniel circus phenomenon to the handful of unwitting masses that still visit this burp of a forum.

It's at times like these that I just love you, Zook! Really! I'm not being sarcastic. You are a joy!
Basically, you are saying I should only present one side of the story -- the one that has your stamp of approval.
Gotta love ya, Zook! Just gotta...


My stamp of approval has integrity etched into it. Yours doesn't. You can present as many sides of the story as you want, Chico - and you often do - but in the end, your stamp of approval is what it is: a red-orange mark left by the press of a fifth columnist's rubber stamp (moistened by an inkpad soaked in Rothschild Farms' carrot juice).


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:04 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10110
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
UncleZook wrote:
Established truth is established truth regardless of who speaks it.

You are so lost, Zook. By introducing "established", you have injected subjectivity, i.e. perception. Now you have redefined truth to be dependent on consensus.

"An idea does not gain truth as it gains followers." -- Amanda Bloom

UncleZook wrote:
IOW, truths are not fixed prior to their evaluation, and a person with less integrity is more challenged to establish the truths than a person with more integrity ... That is self-evident.

See what I mean? You think truths have to be "fixed" by "evaluation". And you chalk it up as "self-evident", your usual ploy.

I am arguing that there is objective truth that lies outside of human interpretation. For example, the actual events leading up to 9/11 exist, but almost no one knows what they are. Everyone has their own story based on the information they have to work with, the pieces of which may or may not be true.

Your interpretation of truth needing to be established and evaluated comes from your psychology of superiority and certainty. You believe you have superior discernment. As a result, you feel certain of your establishments, evaluations, and fixations. Zook's truth becomes THE truth in Zook's mind. You have amply demonstrated that error throughout this and many other forums.

UncleZook wrote:
Fact check: Brother Nathaniel was on point all the time and betrayed neither satire nor sarcasm.

You are so lost, Zook. Hypocrisy is not satire or sarcasm. Satire and sarcasm can be used to highlight hypocrisy, but that does not mean they are all the same thing. In this case, neither BN or I were using satire or sarcasm to highlight the hypocrisy. There was no need. The hypocrisy (of both you and Obama) was easily identifiable.

UncleZook wrote:
What you describe as my spin ... is indeed the spin of integrity.

My, but we are full of ourselves, aren't we. No surprise there.

UncleZook wrote:
People tend to receive my arguments because I embrace the observable facts and converge to the inevitable conclusions. People tend not to receive your arguments because you sail above the observable facts and diverge in all sorts of directions, like a party balloon slipped from the fingers of the blowhard that pumped it but could not secure it.

Well there you go, case closed! Why bother to attack the messenger? You're doing work that according to you is unnecessary.

UncleZook wrote:
My stamp of approval has integrity etched into it. Yours doesn't. You can present as many sides of the story as you want, Chico - and you often do - but in the end, your stamp of approval is what it is: a red-orange mark left by the press of a fifth columnist's rubber stamp (moistened by an inkpad soaked in Rothschild Farms' carrot juice).

:lol: See what I mean? If that's the established truth, Zook-evaluated and Zook-fixed, then why are we having this discussion? Chico has no integrity. Zook is the paragon of integrity. No truth flows from Chico. All truth flows from Zook.

Oh, right. We are having this discussion because I believe I have to look in other directions to uncover the truth, and Zook doesn't like that.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
UncleZook wrote:
Established truth is established truth regardless of who speaks it.

You are so lost, Zook. By introducing "established", you have injected subjectivity, i.e. perception. Now you have redefined truth to be dependent on consensus.
"An idea does not gain truth as it gains followers." -- Amanda Bloom


Your premise is incorrect. I had not injected subjectivity as you purposefully spin it here , but rather, exposed the ubiquitous existence of subjectivity in human communications and understandings, not least those understandings that involve opinion. The truths - in the context of our discussion - are not objective truths or scientific truths like the acceleration due to gravity (32 feet per second per second) ... but highly disputed, thereby yet to be established, subjective truths offered by sundry historians and researchers (e.g. as they individually and collectively weed out the low probability clouds from the high probability clouds of an event, pick an event any event).

To wit, truth is dependent on precision, not consensus. Those with precise instruments are better at establishing the truths than those with imprecise instruments. Notwithstanding Amanda Bloom's misplaced blossom, this discussion is not about ideas, but about facts. The precision and imprecision of facts, to be precise. The establishment of facts by another name.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
IOW, truths are not fixed prior to their evaluation, and a person with less integrity is more challenged to establish the truths than a person with more integrity ... That is self-evident.

See what I mean? You think truths have to be "fixed" by "evaluation". And you chalk it up as "self-evident", your usual ploy.


No ploy. My usual precision. Subjective truths have to be established ... and establishment is assisted by informed opinion. There are is no truth in human discourse if there is no evaluation (subjective or otherwise). That's the reality of human limitation. Even the acceleration due to gravity had to be evaluated many times before its value could be fixed.

Quote:
I am arguing that there is objective truth that lies outside of human interpretation. For example, the actual events leading up to 9/11 exist, but almost no one knows what they are. Everyone has their own story based on the information they have to work with, the pieces of which may or may not be true.


There is sufficient observable objective evidence in the 9/11/2001 attacks to lay out airtight specific indictments against Mossad and other intelligence agencies. But cupids, cowards, fifth columnists and the like, continue to collectively push arguments of uncertainty into the mix because these misfits are not operating from a genuine truthseeking perspective, but rather, from the fog of ignorance, fear or an agenda of obstructing the truths.

There are no such real entities as valid and invalid opinions on the 9/11/2001 attacks ... the preponderance of evidence vacates all opinions. That you maintain there can be opinions on the 9/11/2001 attacks, is merely your fifth column agency of infusing uncertainty and confusion.

Quote:
Your interpretation of truth needing to be established and evaluated comes from your psychology of superiority and certainty. You believe you have superior discernment. As a result, you feel certain of your establishments, evaluations, and fixations. Zook's truth becomes THE truth in Zook's mind. You have amply demonstrated that error throughout this and many other forums.


In comparison to you and your arguments, the superiority of my arguments is self-evident. You defend uncertainty when it is unwarranted. You offend certainty when it is found. You promote sociopathy where it does not exist.
You demote it where it does. You have a track record of lying and a congenital propensity for it. And you have the audacity to project your liabilities and limitations on others.

Were I to remain silent about your deficient character; or your charter and carrot commission of creating confusion whenever and wherever you find opportunity ... then I would be negligent in my discernment and become an unwitting obstacle to the truths, myself.

Fortunately, my ability to discern truth - and an abiding affection for it - keeps me in the sounds of the highlands.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Fact check: Brother Nathaniel was on point all the time and betrayed neither satire nor sarcasm.

You are so lost, Zook. Hypocrisy is not satire or sarcasm. Satire and sarcasm can be used to highlight hypocrisy, but that does not mean they are all the same thing. In this case, neither BN or I were using satire or sarcasm to highlight the hypocrisy. There was no need. The hypocrisy (of both you and Obama) was easily identifiable.

UncleZook wrote:
What you describe as my spin ... is indeed the spin of integrity.

My, but we are full of ourselves, aren't we. No surprise there.

UncleZook wrote:
People tend to receive my arguments because I embrace the observable facts and converge to the inevitable conclusions. People tend not to receive your arguments because you sail above the observable facts and diverge in all sorts of directions, like a party balloon slipped from the fingers of the blowhard that pumped it but could not secure it.

Well there you go, case closed! Why bother to attack the messenger? You're doing work that according to you is unnecessary.

UncleZook wrote:
My stamp of approval has integrity etched into it. Yours doesn't. You can present as many sides of the story as you want, Chico - and you often do - but in the end, your stamp of approval is what it is: a red-orange mark left by the press of a fifth columnist's rubber stamp (moistened by an inkpad soaked in Rothschild Farms' carrot juice).

:lol: See what I mean? If that's the established truth, Zook-evaluated and Zook-fixed, then why are we having this discussion? Chico has no integrity. Zook is the paragon of integrity. No truth flows from Chico. All truth flows from Zook.

Oh, right. We are having this discussion because I believe I have to look in other directions to uncover the truth, and Zook doesn't like that.


Indeed, you have pushed the narrative into the extremes of White Zook and Black Chico. I can't really blame you. Caricature is the only thing left to hold and sell when reality abandons your market stall. Your rants are to be expected. So be it.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:35 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10110
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
UncleZook wrote:
To wit, truth is dependent on precision, not consensus.

Truth is independent of both. I already made the point that truth does not depend on consensus. Most human affairs do depend on consensus however, including precision. So truth does not depend on precision. However, your interpretation of truth does depend on precision, and your precision has been shown to be severely lacking.

UncleZook wrote:
There are is no truth in human discourse if there is no evaluation (subjective or otherwise).

There is very little truth in human discourse, that's for sure. There is lots of evaluation going on, but it is of little use when there is very little truth in human discourse.

UncleZook wrote:
There are no such real entities as valid and invalid opinions on the 9/11/2001 attacks ... the preponderance of evidence vacates all opinions.

You are so lost, Zook. The preponderance of evidence is evaluated to create opinions, which vary in validity depending on the quality of the analysis, the evidence available, and the proportion of truth contained in that evidence.

UncleZook wrote:
That you maintain there can be opinions on the 9/11/2001 attacks, is merely your fifth column agency of infusing uncertainty and confusion.

May I remind you of your distasteful habit of judging people based solely on the contrast between their opinions of 9/11 and yours?

UncleZook wrote:
In comparison to you and your arguments, the superiority of my arguments is self-evident.

If the superiority of your arguments is "self-evident", why do you need to compare them to other arguments?

UncleZook wrote:
  • You defend uncertainty when it is unwarranted.
  • You offend certainty when it is found.
  • You promote sociopathy where it does not exist.
  • You demote it where it does.
  • You have a track record of lying and a congenital propensity for it.
  • And you have the audacity to project your liabilities and limitations on others.

I get the distinct impression that your posts are really about me, perhaps oriented towards denigration and character assassination.

UncleZook wrote:
Were I to remain silent about your deficient character; or your charter and carrot commission of creating confusion whenever and wherever you find opportunity ... then I would be negligent in my discernment and become an unwitting obstacle to the truths, myself.

Fortunately, my ability to discern truth - and an abiding affection for it - keeps me in the sounds of the highlands.

And it appears your posts are also about you, perhaps oriented towards self-aggrandizement and ego inflation.

UncleZook wrote:
Indeed, you have pushed the narrative into the extremes of White Zook and Black Chico.

I've done that?! But you just said above that I'm all these bad things, and you're all these good things, so...

Wait a minute! Aren't you accusing your opponent (me) of your own malfeasance, again? Why yes, you are. There it is in your own words, in black and white.

Zook, you are exhibiting classic sociopathic behavior, and you're not even aware of it. In fact, you can't help yourself. What are we supposed to think when you do this continually?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:07 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 10110
Reply with quote
Post Re: Brother Nathanael
I have great admiration for Brother Nathanael. My admiration is not due to his religious convictions, but to his conviction for truth-telling. I feel the same way about Vincent Reynouard, Mike King, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Phil Schneider, Chip Tatum, and Adolf Hitler. None of these men are sociopaths, because sociopaths are deliberate deceivers. Truth-tellers are not trying to deceive others, but to prevent others from being deceived.

All of these men are censored as well, just like Brother Nathnael is. I know what that is like, as this entire forum is shadow banned on the Internet.

Like Adolf Hitler, who published one book entitled Mein Kampf ("My Struggle" in English), Brother Nathanael has his struggle as well, just like all the truth-tellers do in this world ruled by sociopaths. Here is the video found at that link, which will surely be censored soon enough from YouTube, like most of Brother Natanael's videos.




My Struggle (Brother Nathanael)
(duration 7:41)


UncleZook is not on my list of admired truth-tellers, because UncleZook is not a truth-teller. He's a deceiver and a manipulator. I was reminded of that while reading the earlier posts in this thread just prior to this post. Good ole Zook — what a snake-oil salesman! As entertaining as his posts are, I sure don't miss them, or UncleZook. Our debates seem like the video below, only it's Zook that goes down to Georgia, the state where I was born:




Charlie Daniels Band 1979 The Devil Went Down To Georgia
(duration 3:28)

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:50 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.