1. Br. Nathanael is absolutely a member of ROCOR, according to our bishops.
2. Br. Nathanael has made clear he is anti-Zionist, not anti-Semite. Of course, recent dictionaries equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, though there is no logical basis for such a conflation, don't help the clarity of things.
3. Many Jewish faithful are also anti-Zionist, especially the Orthodox and more conservative Jews, and also Hebrew Hippies (sorry, couldn't resist).
4. The website appears non-vague in delivering two important pieces of info: that he is a novice in ROCOR and that he does not speak for ROCOR.
5. I view him as being, in our times, a sort of Cassandra of Troy. Even his (asserted) assertion that Sandy Hook was a psy-op, has quite a bit of evidence in its favor, although I am not ready to subscribe to a particular version of events behind those events. I believe there are still many unanswered questions, and am very, very reluctant to assert things which could turn out to be untrue or which can't be proven.
6. But to me the big doozy here, the elephant in the room most seem to be missing, is that we have horribly evil people doing evil and horrible things to people that are causing and can yet cause untold deaths and suffering, and deprive people of their most basic human dignity. In the context of these heinous and enormous crimes, the whistleblower is attacked. Then, instead of speaking ill of the wicked criminals who are actually harming and killing and sterilizing people and starting unnecessary wars, and doing much other mischief, our eccentric and outspoken but completely harmless Br. Nathanael is himself attacked.
There's something profoundly and extremely wrong with this picture.
P.S. While the Other Mainstream Media (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc.) always speak ill of the ACLU, the fact is that on occasion they have defended the right to free speech of some persons we cannot possibly see as exhibiting the political views which the ACLU seems to espouse. The ACLU has worked to defend Constitutional rights of various persons. So I disagree with the broad-brush and view them more as a mixed bag of advocacy.