McAtee Examines George Will’s Conservative Bonafides

“You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven…”

Daniel 5
Daniel Addressing Belshazzar 

“But a free market economic system is a system. It is a public product, a creation of government. Any important structure of freedom is a structure, a complicated institutional and cultural context that government must nurture and sustain. Obviously, free speech is not free in the sense that it is free of prerequisites. It is not free of a complicated institutional frame. Free speech, as much as a highway system is something government must establish and maintain,” and so on and on.

A welfare state is certainly important to and probably indispensable to social cohesion and, hence, to national strength. A welfare state is implied by conservative rhetoric. A welfare state can be an embodiment of a wholesome ethic of common provision.”

George Will 
In Defense of the Welfare State — 1983

1.) Note first that Will has always been cast by the Mainstream media as a Conservative. This reveals that 35 years ago Conservatism was a joke. How much more so now? Thoughtful Christians have to realize that in terms of the political spectrum in this country we have no dog in the fight. Our dog died in 1861.

2.) Note also that the free market is not only a creation of the (presumably Federal) Government, per Will, but the free market being the creation of the Government it is up to the Government to nurture and sustain this thing that the Government has created. The whole idea of Creation, Sustaining and Governing used to be ascribed, in systematic theology, to God’s providence. Will has replaced the Christian God with the state as God walking on the earth. The State is the creator, sustainer, and governor. Man is Plato’s political animal.

3.) If a free market economic system is a ‘creation of Government’ then how is it the case that it is ‘Free market?” If it is a creation of the Government then why not refer to it as the “Government market?”

4.) Will is presupposing the old fascist line of ‘everything inside the state, nothing outside the state.’ Will has posited that the State is the overall conditioning environment in which man lives, moves, breathes and has his being. Of course, the fascists got that idea from Hegel who got it from Aristotle and Plato. No Biblical Christian can abide this horse manure thinking from the “conservative” George Will.

Increasingly, one is hearing the modernist clergy bleat about how politics does not belong in the pulpit. This quote proves that the pulpit cannot help but be political. When our wisemen, politicians, talking heads, and cultural gatekeepers arise to denounce God’s sovereignty how can the pulpit not sing out in defiance of all such pagan thinking? For the pulpit to remain mute in light of the claim that the Government is God walking on the earth would be to abandon the calling to be salt and light, it would be to go all treasonous at the very moment when faithfulness is most desperately needed, as done on a large scale it would be the end of Institutional Biblical Christianity. The pulpit must be political because politics is increasingly seeking to muscle in on the bailiwick of the pulpit. Ministers who refuse to thwap pagan thinking upside the head when pagan thinking is seeking to mold the thinking of God’s people are either stupid or cowards.

Modern conservatism is just right-wing Hegelianism.

Reflections on Passchendaele


During August 1917, when the battle of Passchendaele was raging, 127 mm of rain fell in Flanders which was double the normal average for that month. Combine this with the reality that Ypres, where Passchendaele was fought, was a region largely made up of flat, low ground that was kept dry only with the help of an intricate series of dikes and ditches which had been broken and shattered by the heavy shelling that Ypres had seen both with the onslaught preparing the Passchendaele assault and with the heavy shelling in the first two battles fought at Ypres. All of this meant that the terrain on which the soldiers fighting the battle of Passchendaele on was mud-hell. Some soldiers later wrote that it was like fighting on a bottomless bowl of porridge.

The mud was so gooey … so thick … so bad that many of the soldiers were drowning in mud. The trauma of this was doubled by the fact that this was a comparatively slow process. A soldier would get stuck and eventually three more soldiers would be on the scene trying to pull their comrade out of the porridge mud but with no success. It became so bad that eventually, stuck soldiers having heard of the mud drownings would beg, once a certain point was reached in their sinking, for their comrades to shoot them so that they would not suffocate beneath the mud. Many obliged their comrades. One Lieutenant became so maddened that he began hacking with his sword a soldier who was stuck up to his armpits in the goo. The Lieutenant was not being cruel, he had just flipped out at his inability to keep his men from dying in this way.

The water was pooled everywhere. However, that same water was fetid as the holes the water was filling when not filled with rotting corpses were being used as latrines. Also, the heavy poisonous gas that was part of the shelling would find the low spots as a natural residing place. The irony in all this is that the supply lines had not been able to provide fresh potable water to the front lines so that on one hand the soldiers were drenched with water while on the other hand many were languishing from dehydration.

The mud and water were so bad there was no way to advance. As such the military came up with the idea of laying down duckboards upon which the men could walk to advance. The problem with this military genius is that German machine guns didn’t bother with covering any of the ground except where the duckboards were laid down. Further, at night the German artillery would target the duckboards so that the duckboard laying had to start all over again the next day. So the rank and file soldier had to decide between taking his chances by dying in some muckhole that would swallow him whole or by dying by being a sitting duck for a German machine gunner while keeping to the duckboards.

You can look at old photos of horses and donkeys sunk up to their necks in mud and muck while still harnessed to the wagons they were seeking to pull.

There were 275,000 British casualties at Passchendaele while the Germans chimed in at 220,000 casualties.

From the time that warfare began to fascinate me (very young) till today I still cannot get my mind around whatever would move a young man to endure those kinds of conditions to fight for the wickedness of men in high places. At 12 I had already decided I was not going to Vietnam but was headed to Canada if they were still fighting that fool war when I hit 18.

Is there something wrong with me that I take all these deaths so personal of 20 something-year-olds that died 100 years ago?

Returning to Churchill … Book Review of M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog”

Last night I completed M. S. King’s “The British Mad Dog; Debunking the Myth of Winston Churchill.”
It should be noted at the outset that King is not the best person to first read as a contrarian historian. King tends to be a sensationalist and to often will go too far out on a limb to affirm a questionable point. However, having admitted that, if one is already somewhat familiar with the subject matter that King is writing on, from a non-Court Historian understanding then one has the ability to read King with profit as King has the ability to bring a large amount of information together in a very simple format.
King is no fan of Churchill and for that, I give him credit. However, when King starts off his book suggesting that Churchill’s father was not Lord Randolph Churchill and that Churchill’s Father was instead the offspring of the King of Serbia due to one of his mother’s countless flings one realizes that King has an ax to grind. (King on this questionable Churchill parentage quotes from a book by Dragoslava Koprivica.) One thing that does seem indisputable on this score is that Churchill’s mother was indeed a tramp who gave birth to Winnie 8 months after her marriage to Lord Randolph Churchill. As such anything is possible.
King’s sensationalism also informs us that Churchill was quite likely a bisexual. Churchill did have five children with his wife but King insists that Churchill’s time at the British Harrow boy’s school may have introduced Churchill to sodomy. It is without question true that Churchill was surrounded by men it would later be discovered were sodomites, but of course, that does not prove that Churchill himself was a sodomite. King’s evidence on Churchill’s homosexuality is merely circumstantial. It may be true but there is nothing that proves it is true.
One matter that King establishes beyond doubt that also agrees with other sources is that Churchill spent money like Lamashtu drank blood. Because of Churchill’s spendthrift ways, he was forever in money trouble and that money trouble allowed Churchill to sell his soul to those who delivered him from his money pit. King cites the Jewish financiers who bailed Churchill out. They include names like the well known Bernard Baruch, as well as the Jewish group of wealthy businessmen called ‘the Focus.’ The ‘Focus Group’ was headed by Jewish Corporatists named Sir Robert Mond and Sir Robert Waley-Cohen but was not limited to these two men.
David Irving in a speech supports King’s work,
“‘The Focus’ was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the board of Jewish deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in the Waley Cohen memoirs… The 29th of July, 1936m Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group.”
50,000 pounds in 1936 is today’s equivalent of approximately 2 million dollars. Irving goes on to insist that the 50,000 pounds was for the purpose of saber-rattling against Hitler and Germany.
King also speaks of a wealthy Jewish South African Corporatist by the name of Sir Henry Strakosch who via his involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill, in 1938, has been cited as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics in the run-up to World War Two. Strakosch also supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during Churchill’s political campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime. Strakosch’s financial arrangement with Churchill enabled Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures. The financial relationship between Strakosch and Churchill can be sourced not only in David Irving’s work but also in Martin Gilbert’s work on Churchill.
King also tells the tale of Churchill’s well-known failures in the Dardanelles, Gallipoli, Antwerp, in Northern Ireland with his Black & Tans, and the invasion of Norway. King gives us a glimpse of Churchill’s alcohol problem and informs us that as an author and speechwriter Churchill was often a plagiarizer as well as a man who put his name on the work accomplished by ghost-writers. From King, we learn that the BBC Children’s voice of the Winnie the Pooh books was the man who gave some of Churchill’s speeches over the radio. That was supposed to have never been known. King reminds us that Churchill as a painter signed the name of an impressionist artist named Charles Maurin to his paintings in order to sell his painting at a greater price. King goes out of his way repeatedly to inform the reader that Churchill was a manufactured and marketed product that was packaged and sold to a gullible public. In short, Churchill excelled only in blood and mayhem but in every other respect was a phony.
King colors Churchill as black as possible. We are told Churchill was a terrible Father, a man who examined the idea to invade Russia after defeating the Nazis in WW II, the man who started bombing German civilian population with the desperate hopes that Hitler would retaliate, the man who advanced the New World Order’s agenda to create a uni-global political structure, a sock puppet pursuing the agenda of those who were paying his debts. It is possible that King paints Churchill in colors darker than he really was.
I’m not inclined to think that is possible to do.

The Implications of Hillary Clinton’s “I Loss the Election Because” Quote

“We do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women, And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever believes you should.”

Hillary Clinton 
On why she lost to Trump

Some people would have it that Hillary is just making excuses for her loss when in point of fact the reason that she lost is that Hillary ran a lousy campaign.  Now, I quite agree that Hillary ran a lousy campaign but don’t miss that there is also a great deal of truth in this quote. The implications of this statement are breathtaking as well as the implications of some of the implications. For example,

1.) The only white people Democrats do well with are single females who typically are Feminists. If a woman isn’t married and is voting for Hillary it likely has to do with her feminism instincts.

2.) If a single white female doesn’t vote Democrat then it is obvious that either she is being oppressed and victimized by some white man in her life or she is too stupid to know how to vote without being instructed by her significant male.

3.) This is an admission that the Democratic party is now the party which appeals to minorities and single white females who are feminists.

4.) The minority and feminist vote as combined with the academician and pervert vote is now the voting base of the Democratic party. This is also the base of the cultural Marxism movement. This base has been the shock troops who have performed the “long march through the institutions” for a generation now advancing the cause of Bolshevik cultural Marxism.

5.) Because of this quote, you can now understand why providing amnesty for illegal — and so therefore criminal — immigrants is the cause celebre for the Democratic party. Without more voting non-White people in this country, the Democratic party dies.

6.) Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Republican party understands any of this. The Republican party, which should be doing all it can to increase the percentage of its white vote instead is committing hari-kari by working towards amnesty and by voting against the interest of their white working class, married, Christian base. Republicans do so in the interest of their mega Corporation donors as well as in the interest of the US Chamber of commerce.  Republicans see the huge money flow from these special interests and as such, they throw overboard the idea of a homogenous white Christian culture in the interest of the campaign funds that come from those who have an interest in a large cheap labor pool and then start mouthing the jejune blather of propositional nationhood.

7.) This means that currently, the White married middle-class non-pervert Christian has no party that is embracing their unique voting interests. In the 2016 election, this interest group voted Trump (mistakenly in my opinion) but many of them knew that Trump was an imperfect weapon. It was a vote that reasoned that as the Orcs were at the gates even a retarded Goblin as a weapon against Orcs was better than letting the Orcs in the gates. Trump was the retarded Goblin sent out to fight Hillary and the cultural Marxist Orcs.

8.) Of course, none of this means that every single minority, every single non-married white woman, every single feminist, or every single pervert votes Democratic. These are general observations, not universal observations. A simple glance of the percentage of the vote from unmarried white women, from perverts, from different minority groups establishes that there is nothing controversial in anything that has been noted in this brief post.

9.) To put this as clearly as possible, married white people who vote Democrat or Republican are voting for their own genocide. Republicans and Democrats as the political establishment are those who are serving as the political conveyor belts genociding white people… both Christian and non-Christian.

10.) Putatively Christian Churches which do not recognize and resist the machinations currently in play to genocide white people are part of the problem.


Isaiah 46;9 Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth My counsel from a far country. Yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations.

Psalm 102:26 They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; and as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed. 27 But Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end.

James 1;17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

All of these passages, and others like them that we will be referencing alike teach that there is no change in God.

The fact that God is changeless is called immutability. Theologians thus speak of the immutability of God. 

“Whatever is changeable is not the most high God,” and “that which truly is is that which unchangeably abides.”

Augustine of Hippo

There is a reason that God speaks of Himself as immutable and that is because mutability in God … changing in God would imply that God was not a perfect being. Change implies as going from worse to better or from better to worse or as to something different but as God is perfection there can be no going from worse to better, better to worse or going to something different. God is absolute perfection and therefore improvement, deterioration, or transformation into something other is impossible.

Now before we get rolling here on God’s immutability we must note that all because we note that God is immutable that does not mean that we are teaching that God immobile. The God of the Bible is not the God of Aristotle… “The unmoved mover.” God enters into relations with man and He is active in the affairs of man working for the benefit of His people and the destruction of the wicked.

Berkhof offers here,

“There is change around God, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His purpose.”

As we speak of the Aseity of God so it is true of God’s immutability. God is free from all change … all improvement. In the words of A. W. Tozer,

“All that God is He always has been, and all that He has been and is He ever will be.”

The theologian Theissen offers,

“In essence, attributes, consciousness, and will God is unchangeable.”

We might ask,

Where is God’s immutability seen in the doctrine of our salvation? Well, we know that God is perfectly Just. Crime must be visited with its penalty or God is unjust. God consistently promised throughout Scripture that the wages of sin is death. Sin deserves death and a God who has promised death for sin, being immutable must visit sin with death or else he is neither just nor immutable. In brief, if God doesn’t visit sin with penalty then God de-gods himself. But God is also merciful and as God is immutable in His mercy neither can His mercy be called into question. So, God being immutable visits sin with its Just consequence in offering up Himself in the 2nd person of the Trinity in order that His immutability is not brought into question as He reveals that He is both Just and Justifier … both just and merciful, to those who have faith in Jesus.

God’s immutability in His Holiness and Justice and mercy find their consistency in the death of Christ.

Christian, would you like to see God’s immutability? Then look to the Cross. There at the Cross, it is screamed that God changes not. If there ever may have been a place for God to renege on His immutability it would have been with the Cross, but there at the Cross we see that God changes not.

Because of God’s immutability, we can trust that God’s promises will come to pass. Whenever I lay a loved believer in the grave I think of God’s immutability. This is not the end. God has promised eternal life. God is immutable. There will be a resurrection from the dead.

Whenever I have troubles and trials I think of God’s immutability. He has promised He will never leave us nor forsake us. He has promised that all that comes from the Father’s providential hand is for my good. God is immutable. If God says that then it is true.

Now we may ask,

What about those times where Scripture uses language like, “God relented,” or “God repented,” or in some translations, “God changed His mind?”

Examples, (And we can’t get at them all)

Immutability and Abraham’s Prayer (Gen. 18:16-33)

1.) God from eternity past determined to destroy Sodom
2.) God also from eternity past determined that Abraham would intercede for Sodom
3.) God determined from eternity past upon His interaction with Abraham to the end that He would spare Sodom if 10 righteous could be found

So, here in this narrative passage, you have a God, if read one way, is constantly changing His mind (50, 45, 40, 30, 20, 10) but if read in the broader context that God predestines the end (Sodom’s destruction) as well as the means to the end (a prayer that Sodom not be destroyed if x amount of the righteous could be found in Sodom) than God’s immutability is seen as abiding.

As an aside this should encourage us in our prayer life. No, God’s mind is not changed by our prayers, as if we could bend the immutable God’s will to our mutable ends, but it may well be the case that the ordained end that God has ordained may well include the ordained prayers of God’s people to that end. So, God may well ordain some result but only in the context of His ordaining prayer as a temporal means to that result.

Another example,

Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.” So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exod. 32:11-14)

So, here we have in this narrative passage that “God relented,” but in other passages we get this,

“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Behold, I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it. (Num. 23:19-20)

And again, “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent”(1 Sam. 15:29).

So, how do we harmonize these kinds of passages so that God’s immutability is sustained?

Well, first note that most of the passages that teach that God’s repents, relents, or changes His mind come in the context of narrative passages … often passages that have to do with God relenting from visiting sin with judgment. While the places where we get the bald statements that God changeth not is what we might call didactic passages. Passages, that have as their express purpose to say something about the character of God.  We would offer here that this is a case where the didactic passages are the more clear passages where the narrative passages are the less clear passages and so the less clear must be read in light of the more clear.

But aside from that observation, consider this prayer of Moses. If we understood this prayer of Moses the way that those who want to deny God’s immutability we would be left with a pretty small God and an awfully big Moses. Here we have the all-wise Sovereign of the universe resolved upon destroying Israel but Moses intervenes just in time to convince God how unreasonable that would be. Moses puts before God some truths that God didn’t think of. Whew, what a lucky God that He had Moses around. Do we really want to conclude that God

1.) In a fit of impulsive anger, God forgot the consequences of His proposed actions upon His reputation? (That Egypt would speak ill of Him)

2.) In a fit of impulsive anger, God forgot His promises to the patriarchs?

God forgetting consequences and promises would mean that God was not omniscient … not all knowing. So, to interpret these texts the way that some seek to do gives us a God that is neither

a.) Immutable           b.) Omniscient   c.) Longsuffering   d.) Merciful

To make these narrative texts control the didactic texts is to give us a God who is pretty small.

So, we read these texts which seem to deny God’s immutability as texts that are using what is called phenomenological language. For example, Scripture speaks of God as having a might right arm. Scripture speaks of the finger of God. Scripture speaks of God having wings. But very few people I know want to make these passages contradict the passage that teaches that God is Spirit. No, we all understand that the text is describing God phenomenologically. God is being spoken of from the way man comprehends these matters. The purpose of the author of the text when it speaks of God’s mighty right arm is to communicate that God’s might is not limited. Just so we would say that the purpose of texts where God proposes instantaneous judgment, only to be “appealed to out of such judgment” is to communicate both God’s Holiness (He cannot abide sin) and God’s Mercy (God provides a High Priest to intercede). So, in the usage of phenomenological language God the inspired writer of Scripture is seeking to make a theological statement regarding the character and nature of God and His relation to man. The literature in these narratives that deal with Judgment and relenting is not used as a how-to manual to assemble a lawnmower but rather it is literature used to describe events as they appear to the observer.

This is not uncommon in Scripture. The Bible speaks of sunrises and sunsets as does the guy on the Weather channel.  This is the way that it phenomenologically appears to us. Scripture frequently in its narratives describes events in terms of how they appear to the observer.  But these phenomenological narrative descriptions cannot overturn the explicit didactic assertions.

“And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent”

Malachi 3:6 

“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Isaiah 46:10

 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

It seems to me that the flavor of theology called Dispensationalism has a serious problem with God’s immutability because in their theology they actually believe that God’s real intent to set up the Messianic Kingdom was foiled by the Jews refusing Christ as their King. At that point, God went to plan “B” and introduced the Church. For the Dispensationalist God neither determined His will (there goes omnipotence) nor did God know His plan would be foiled (there goes omniscience) and God was forced to change His mind in favor of a new plan (there goes Immutability).

And of course Dispensationalism also has a problem with how God’s plan of salvation changes from dispensation to dispensation.

Those who fiddle and play with God’s law as applicable to and for man from the Old Covenant and the New Covenant need to be warned about this matter of God’s immutability. If God has one law for His people in the old Covenant and another law for His people in the new covenant well, some can easily see a denial of God’s immutability there. Yes, yes, I understand all the arguments that seek to escape that point but let the warning be raised that when you change God’s law in its applicability and enforcement, in ways inconsistent with an expressed Word you are treading on the thin ice of denying Gods immutability.

The Biblical understanding of Immutability stands as opposed to Arminian doctrines of the immutability of God. For the Arminian God does not change in His being but God does change in His knowledge and will. For example the Arminian believes that God will is changed all the time. God’s will is for all men to be saved but God’s will is not immutable because some men aren’t saved. God’s will is not immutable. God’s decisions are too a great extent dependent upon the actions of man. Man acts and God reacts.

The Biblical understanding of Immutability stands as opposed to pantheistic denials of the immutability of God. For the pantheist, God is in tandem with man eternally becoming as opposed to owning absolute being. In its Hegelian expression pantheism teaches that the unconscious absolute is gradually coming into conscious personality in man. God through and with man becomes God.


Cash value of this doctrine  … wherein does this doctrine provide for us comfort and strength?

1.) The immutability of God guarantees that his character and all moral distinctions will never fail. God is and ever will be Holy, Just, Sovereign, Patient, Good, Merciful … Because God is immutable God will always be God. Immutability is implied in the “I am-ness” of God.

2.) The immutability of God is a great consolation to all who put their trust in Him. The immutable God will make good on all His promises.

3.) God is constant and His affections do not cool. He immutability is a stern warning to all who reject His mercy … to all who seek to make Him other than He is … to all who raise up Idols and call those idols God.