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.

Power Mistresses

Harding had his Britton
Eisenhower his Kay
Roosevelt had Mercer
Clinton, a Rolodex babe a day

Kennedy had Marilyn
And Mary and Mimi too
And Judith and Priscilla
And God knows only who

The Kennedy men learned
The trade from Papa Joe
The Kennedy men treated women
Like a child fathered by Rosseau

LBJ had Helen Gahagan Douglas
And Alice Glass on the side
Poor Ladybird it seems
Was a pretty lonesome bride

Mr. Newt had Dot and Anne
And a girl in every p0rt
Callista was a mistress
Who cut his second marriage short

Why should Der Trumpster
Not ride these female storms?
Why not have a Stephanie Clifford?
Why should Melania be the norm?

In all this let the citizenry
Of this country be aware
If a man will cheat on his wife
His nation he will not spare


They’ve put stupid in our Water
Stupid in our air
Stupid in our salads
Stupid everywhere

Stupid in our garments
Stupid in our books
Stupid in our cosmetics
So we’re stupid in our looks

Stupid in our meds
Stupid in our cars
Stupid in our tobacco
Stupid served at bars

Stupid in our syrup
Stupid in all weather
Stupid in our bedding
We’re stupid altogether

Stupid in our pulpits
Stupid in our schools
Stupid at our Funerals
Stupid in our jewels

All glory to St. Stupid
Who gives us stupid rhymes
A saint hearing all our prayers
And a companion in our crimes

Winston Churchill… The Man Behind the Propaganda Mask

“In their own countries, FDR and Churchill are honored as embodiments of 
Statesman-like wisdom. To us, in our Russian prison conversations, their consistent shortsightedness and stupidity stood out as astonishingly obvious.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

During the 2018 Academy awards, Gary Oldman was given an Oscar for “Best Actor” for his portrayal of Winston Churchill in the film “Darkest Hour.” “Darkest Hour’ was also nominated for Best Picture and so must be considered one of the top flight films of the year.  Just a couple years prior to the release of “Darkest Hour,” the putative conservative President of Hillsdale College released “Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government.” Very few  manage to  mention Churchill’s appetites,

“Once the American Philanthropist (Bernard Baruch) had ordered up three redheads from the local cat house for the virile English politician  (Churchill): before delivering them that Thursday the Madam had to concoct one with dye; fortunately her color remained until the return to the base on Monday.”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. 1, pg. 117

It is my contention that both the film and Arn’s work is but the continuation of the Churchill propaganda and mythos that has been so characteristic of the last 80 years. Both the film and Arn’s fiction continue the hagiography and balderdash mysticism that surrounds not only Sir Winston Churchill but the whole era between 1914 and 1945. This short post intends to expose the propaganda, blow away the mystic aura and put the lie to the constant hagiography surrounding Churchill.

The fact that Hollywood so championed “Darkest Hour” may suggest that the mask is slipping and so yet another Mickey must be slipped to the grazers in order to keep them in line. Arn’s book is just embarrassing as it steps around the most obvious of facts in order to keep Sir Winnie afloat.

Recently, the same President Arn of putatively conservative Hillsdale college wrote me letting me know how pleased he was over an interview he had done with Oscar Winning Gary Oldman.

Dear Mr. McAtee,

I want to let you know that my friend Gary Oldman recently won the Academy Award for “Best Actor in a Leading Role.” His portrayal of Winston Churchill in the film Darkest Hour is one of the best I have seen.

Last December, Gary Oldman and producer Douglas Urbanski visited Hillsdale College for a screening and panel discussion about the film’s production and significance. One of Gary’s memorable lines—“If Winston Churchill could take on Adolf Hitler at 65, I could sit in a makeup chair for three and a half hours.”

Warm regards,

Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College

I, of course, responded to Dr. Arn,

Dear Larry,

Winston Churchill was one of the greatest villains of the 20th century. A man truly to be despised by anybody with merely a scintilla of a Christian ethos. However, he did have the advantage of living at a time when he could be compared to Stalin, Roosevelt, and Hitler.

Remember Yalta. Remember the forced repatriation of the White Russians.

Rev. Bret McAtee

In this column, I want to give the reasons why I wrote to Larry in such a fashion. I want to give just a brief insight into the Winston Churchill whom the hagiography fails to honestly present. I believe history bears out that Churchill, along with Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo was a figure that was to be despised. I believe history bears out Churchill has a cautionary tale that proves that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The fact that anyone can believe that Winston Churchill was one of the greatest men of the 20th century is proof positive of the effectiveness of propaganda. Churchill was an absolute beast who in his 50 years in public office was the man most responsible for the loss of the British Empire and the decline of England.

“In fighting Hitler, Britain would quintuple her prewar debt, forfeit her world position, bring the Red Army to the Elbe, and collapse her Empire. But we know now from captured documents that despite all the saber-rattling Hitler probably never intended to invade.”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War  Vol. 1, pg. 378

During the run-up to World War I Churchill could write his wife,

“My Darling,

Everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?

Winston Churchill 
Writing to his wife
On the cusp of WW I

One year later Churchill writes someone else,

“Why, I would not be out of this glorious, delicious war for anything the world could give me.”

Churchill was the man, along with Roosevelt, at Yalta, who effectively ended Christendom in Europe by turning over 100 million Eastern European Christians to the Christ-hating Bolsheviks. Indeed, Churchill with his presentation of a priceless Crusader sword to Josef Stalin at the Tehran conference in 1943 provided the definitional standard for obscene.

That he was obscene was seen throughout his career. For example, Churchill was the man who ordered the slaughter of civilians as from the air via the firebombing of civilian homes.

Churchill … was he who initiated the bombing of cities and civilians outside of battle zones. His objective was to force the Nazis to retaliate in kind and relieve pressure on the British airfields which, as legitimate war targets, were being badly hit. Actually, the bombing of German cities, reports Benjamin Colby, as attested by official British histories, began nearly four months before any bombs fell on London, and the blitz itself was deliberately encouraged Prime Minister Churchill.

One stands in horror at the callousness with which Churchill invited the suffering of the British people. For example, the second great fire-bombing of London and the disastrous losses at Coventry were permitted despite the breaking of the German code, providing foreknowledge of the raids.”

William P. Hoar
Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History — pg. 242-243

Keep in mind that it was British bombing policy to bomb middle-class residential areas vis-a-vis more wealthy residential areas because middle-class homes were more densely collected and were made of material that more easily burned. One could get more bang per bomb by bombing German middle-class residential areas.

“At the same time … Sir Arthur Harris’s bomber crews were being briefed for their first major fire-raising attack on a German town, the medieval port of Lubeck on the Baltic. In every such raid, as Sir Charles Portal had directed, the aiming point would be the town’s ancient — and combustible — residential heart, and not its factories or war installations. That night, March 28, the conflagrations in Lubeck totally gutted the city centre, and killed several hundred of its citizens…. Churchill asked the air ministry to do what it could to increase the the weight of bombs actually dropped on German cities.”

David Irving
Churchill‘s War, V. II, p. 372

And we would do well to keep in mind that it was Churchill, as between Germany and England, who started the bombing of cities,

It was Winston Churchill who initiated the bombings of civilian cities outside of battle zones … long before the Nazis hit London. Indeed, Churchill‘s objective was to force the Nazis to retaliate in kind and so relieve pressure on the British airfields which, as legitimate war targets, were being badly hit.

“Actually the bombing of German cities as attested by official British histories, began nearly four months before any bombs fell on London, and the Blitz itself was deliberately encouraged by Prime Minister Churchill.” (Benjamin Colby ‘Twas a Famous Victory’)

If firebombing defenseless refugees and Germans wouldn’t do the trick (total deaths Dresden alone = 130,000)  Churchill even toyed with the idea of dropping anthrax cakes all over Germany to deindustrialize and depopulate the Hun’s Deutsch-land.

Prior to the firebombings of Dresden, and Hamburg, Kassel, etc. it was Churchill who was in charge of 142,000 Allied casualties in the slaughter of the Dardanelles and the Gallipoli campaign. Churchill’s Sea policy during WW I was to fire on white flags so as to ram German submarines which had surfaced. The German subs surfaced in order to be merciful to passengers of ships who they could have just blown out of the water. Churchill gave orders to shoot German naval personnel who were floundering in the sea after their subs had been rammed in a German act of Christian forbearance.

“Churchill’s sea policy was simply outrageous and included advocacy of firing on white flags and shooting prisoners when convenient. British merchant vessels were also instructed to ram submarines if they surfaced in a humanitarian effort to allow merchant passengers to disembark. It thus became folly for German subs to surface, lose the advantage of surprise, and endanger their own crews. In fact when one U-boat captain did just that — surfaced and allowed passengers to leave a British ship — he was approached by another British ship named Baralong, flying the U.S. flag, and sunk The Baralong crew then turned on German seamen floundering in the water and brutally shot as many as were in sight.” (Architects of Conspiracy — William P. Hoar)

So cynical was Churchill that he referred to the Lusitania as “just another 45,000 tons of live bait.” Churchill used the Lusitania as bait for German subs in hopes that the sinking of such vessels with American passengers while transporting illegal munitions would be a casus belli for American entry into World War I.

Questions surround whether or not Prime Minister Churchill knew beforehand of the planned murder of Polish Prime Minister in exile General Sikorski because Sikorski desired to expose the Soviet responsibility for the Katyn forest massacre.  The Polish leader in exile during WW II had discovered how the Soviets murdered 15K Polish officers in the Katyn forest and soon enough Eden is talking about “beating up” Sikorski since Sikorski’s complaining is threatening the British – Soviet alliance. Soon afterward Sikorski’s British flown jet goes down killing Sikorski and his daughter and his whole retinue. Only the pilot survived.

Churchill was responsible for the policy that was called “Operation Keelhaul” supporting the forced return of numerable anti-communist Cossacks, White Russians, and others whom Stalin had absolutely no rightful claim upon.

See, “The Last Secret”, by Nicholas Bethell and “The Secret Betrayal” by Nikolai Tolstoy.

Churchill was a constant and unmitigated drunkard who struggled with his “Black Dog,” and so should have been committed to an Asylum for the chemically dependent.

Churchill had failed to down more than one whiskey-and-soda before the meal began, and ‘therefore, according to the president, was morose and cross all through the dinner.’Like other chronic alcoholics deprived of their sustenance, Winston became first glum, then sullen, then downright rude ….

Irving – Churchill‘s War; V. II, pg. 684

The fact that for 80 years the International media has been able to convince you that Churchill (as well as FDR) was some kind of great man makes me wonder if the Truth will ever out.

Churchill’s praise for wretched and bloodthirsty men is well known. On Stalin, he could offer,

It was an experience of great interest to me to meet Premier Stalin … It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the somber and stormy times in which his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech… Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humor which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war …

Winston Churchill 

“Stalin is the one human being in Russia…. Stalin always kept his word.”

Winston Churchill 
Churchill‘s War – Vol. 1 — pg. vii

“Well, thank God you’ve set my mind at rest! I loathe Trotsky, and I’ve been following his activities for a long time. I considered him the evil genius of Russia. I am all for Stalin’s politics. He is creating a powerful Russia, and that’s what we need — more than anything.”

Winston Churchill

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. 1, pg. 101

Speaking to Mussolini Churchill said,

“If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.”

A younger Churchill noted that when concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, that they produced “the minimum of suffering.” The Boer women and children would doubtlessly have disagreed. 

Churchill had no problem with suffering as seen in his political starvation of a portion of the Indian subcontinent (Bengal) where estimates range he was responsible for the starvation deaths of 1-4 million people by purposely exporting grain from the region to keep that grain from falling into the hands of the Japanese. But as Churchill hated the Indians this very well could have been an easy decision.

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

Winston Churchill

Irving; Churchill‘s War V. II, pg. 563

The suffering that Churchill was concerned about was the suffering of his popularity.

Churchill was deeply concerned about his popularity … He brought out bulging albums with all the press clippings about him. According to another newspaperman, there was even a chart displayed at No. 10 recording the levels of applause when newsreels of him were shown at cinemas.”

David Irving
“Churchill‘s War,” V. II, pg. 506

Winston Churchill as a great hero of the West is a completely fabricated myth. The man’s main principle was the glorification of his person no matter what contradictory principles had to be embraced in order to advance his name. If anything he was a Fabian Socialist per his early attachment to  Sidney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs described Churchill as the most progressive politician of his age.  

Historian Eric Keunhult Leddihn gives this description,

“Mr. Churchill, as we have pointed out, was not a genuine conservative, but a pragmatist and Deist of a certain aristocratic cast, of a terrifying cynicism and astounding ignorance concerning most countries. Nevertheless, he was very gifted by nature in many ways but a comparatively poor schooling; He never was a student of anything. His biography, Mr. Robert Sencourt, said that to him, “Christ was a socialist” and ‘men who had principles were ‘goody goodies,….’ He seized one of the greatest occasions in history and gradually turn it into a calamity for Europe and a triumph for America.”

When WWII came to an end, Great Britain was a socialist country. British socialism was not an achievement of Mr. Clement Attlee’s Labor Government, but that of the war cabinet of Sir Winston Churchill.
Consistent with the Fabianism that Churchill was attached to early on in his career Churchill was and always remained “a man of the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state.” Churchill was a soft Socialist.

Churchill’s character also included bias against Arabs in favor Jews

“Churchill testified to the Peel Commission on March 12, 1937. His startling proposal was that all Palestine be turned over to the Jews. He spoke of their right to immigrate and Britain’s ‘good faith’ toward them.

When Peel’s deputy Sir Horace Rumbold spoke of the injustice done to the Arabs by this invasion of a ‘foreign race,’ Churchill expressed outrage at that phrase, then offered a novel concept of ‘just invasions’ of which the incumbents of Berlin’s Wilhelmstrasse might have been proud:

‘Why is there harsh injustice done if people can come in and make a livelihood for more, and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves? Why is it injustice because there is more work and wealth for everybody? There is no injustice. The injustice is when those who live in the country leave it to be desert for thousands of years.’

As for the ‘invasion,’ it was the Arabs who had come in after the Jews, he maintained, and they had allowed the Jewish hill terraces to decay. ‘Where the Arab goes’ he generalized, ‘it is often desert.’

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. 1, pg. 84

But what was the reason for this Churchillian favor of Jewish interests that impacted more than the policy on Palestine? David Irving tells us in his work,

Churchill owed such a debt to the Anglo-Jewish community from 1936 on that Sir Samuel Hoare would describe his ‘pro-Zionist attitude’ as a black mark against his possible premiership, and another acquaintance would tell Sir Martin Gilbert, the biographer, that ‘Winston was too fond of Jews.”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — Vol. II, pg. xii

If one wants to follow this thread they need to look into the connection between Churchill and “the Focus,” as well as his connection to Sir Henry Strakosch.

It should be noted that Sir Winston Churchill, like a stopped clock, could be occasionally correct, and for that, he should be given credit. Churchill was correct when he wrote,

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”

Churchill was correct when he said,

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

We believe that Churchill, as recorded by David Irving,  was correct when he noted,

“(Churchill) added that he himself found it hard to believe in either world harmony or the deliberate mixing of the races — now known as ‘multiculturalism’; he compared the latter with the result of ‘mixing together the paints in a child’s paintbox’ as Dowding recorded.”

Irving — Churchill‘s War — V. II, pg. 152

So we gladly concede that Churchill was not always in error. There were times when Churchill could be spot on in his observations. That Churchill excelled at rhetoric (even when he had pinched and plagiarized his lines from someone else). I think it can be honestly affirmed that he threw the English Dictionary into the war effort.

But that he was a dangerous and even maniacal man was understood by
Churchill’s contemporaries as understood by the Patriarch of the Kennedy family who was then serving as US Ambassador to England,

 “US Ambassador to England Joseph Kennedy knew how desperately Churchill wanted the US in WW II on the side of Britain. Churchill had made comments hoping that the inevitable Nazi air massacres might draw the US into the war. Kennedy telegraphed his US superiors at one point saying, “it appears to me that there is a feeling that if British women and children are killed… the US will tend more towards their side.”

Sometime after this “Kennedy left from Lisbon on the Manhattan in transit to New York. Before boarding the luxury liner he pleaded with the State Department to announce that even if this vessel mysteriously blew up in the mid-Atlantic with an American ambassador on board Washington would not consider it cause for war.

‘I thought,’ wrote Kennedy in his scurrilous unpublished memoirs, ‘that would give me some protection against Churchill‘s placing a bomb on the ship.'”

David Irving 
Churchill‘s War — pg. 193, 207 

If Winston Churchill was some kind of hero then so was Jack the Ripper.

In My Study

In the quiet of my study
Amongst the presence of my books
No irrationality is spat at me
And I endure no dirty looks

No loopy theories make advance
Illogic does not endure
The stupid do not dance
There is no company with the boor

In the quiet of my study
The world makes perfect sense
The waters are not muddy
Investment brings recompense

But life is not a study
It’s messy and nonlinear
It’s broken and it’s bloody
And the irrational has no fear

So, I try to marry life and study
Doing the best I can
But the return is typically cruddy
And failure more than planned