The modern ideology of racialism is based on heretical anthropology- the notion that several different "races" around the world just happened to evolve separately into homo sapiens. What actually defines a given "race" is subject to the winds of ideological change; moreover, it has nothing to do with Christianity.
Then you misunderstand Br. Nathnanael's position. The idea of a race is entirely subject to self-identification. Whether people identify themselves as broad catagory, such white (what Br. Nathanael advocates) or something more specific, say English or German is entirely their decision. Under this philosophy, one could argue that each has its own usage. A race is simply a group sharing similar characteristics. Like all forms of taxonomy, it is entirely subjective.
"I don't think I'm superior to you, I just want you out of my country" is still a completely reprehensible and anti-Christian attitude.
Was it reprehensible when the Hebrews drove the Canaanites out of Canaan?
Then he would not promote whiteness as an essential element in preserving Christian culture, nor blame our multiracial makeup for the decline of Christianity in the US. Many of the non-white immigrants coming to the US are themselves Christians but that has no bearing on his attitude. He obviously thinks there is something called "white Christian civilization" which is superior and not only because it's Christian.
Br. Nathanael's view could be summed up as maintaining a white bloc capable of resisting Jewish influence (Christianity being the moral solidification of that bloc). Br. Nathanael has never advocated white supremacy of any sort. but has defended the white majority on the grounds that it can be a tremendous bulwark against International Jewry. His arguments are based on effectiveness, not a lofty racial ideals.
Br. Nathanael has argued that a system composed of various races (with no clear majority) could be effectively dominated by Jewry. Racial wars (subtly promoted by the Zionist media and Hollywood) would devastate the country internally, allowing the only organized minority (Jewry) to rise to greater prominence.
That's the problem- the notion that a "race" will give rise to a certain set of ethical principles, and that people of different "races" can't share a common ethical vision. The Church is the ultimate refutation of this. The common chalice of the eucharist is a unity, between many different peoples, which is far more profound than any petty contrivance about race or nation. Someone who claims to be an Orthodox Christian but cannot abide alongside fellow human beings drinks condemnation to himself by dividing Christ.
My mistake. I intended to type ethnic rather than ethical.
Br. Nathanael differs from White Nationalism on this point. Rather than basing ethics around racial constructs, it is entirely centered in Christianity. His idea of white Christendom is a political ideal, not a religious one. Being an Orthodox Christian, Br. Nathanael most clearly understands the unifying and multi-racial nature of the Church.
Keep in mind Iconodule, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Racial identification was not part of the early Church, nor is it rooted in Orthodoxy. I also do not believe it to be necessary weapon against Jewish domination. I will, however, defend Br. Nathanael against false accusations. He has never espoused the idea that whites are superior to other races nor has he promoted hatred of any sort. Ultimately, I believe he is wrong, but not malevolent or heretical.