Tag: cuckservative

Mailvox: what is Churchianity

Yesterday we had a few requests for a definition of “Churchianity”:

 Is there anywhere on this blog where you define “Churchian”? 
– MS

I too would like a definition of Churchian. Could you cover that in a future post?
– Jaypo

While I have frequently alluded to it, I have not addressed Churchianity directly on this blog before. In part, that is because I am loath to play Christian Police, a role for which I am ill-suited spiritually and temperamentally. I wish to stress that I cannot, and will not, be the judge of whether anyone is a genuine Christian or is a mere Churchian instead; that determination is well above my pay grade. It does not fall to me to even be the judge of my own Christianity, as we are all fallen and none of us know whether we will be saved or we will be one of those from whom Jesus will turn and say “I never knew you.”

In this, as in all things spiritual, we see as though through a glass, darkly. And yet, we are also given eyes and wit and perhaps even a modicum of spiritual discernment, so if we cannot judge another man’s soul, we can certainly judge institutions by their actions and intellectual concepts by their consequences.

I gave the matter a fair amount of thought when writing Chapter 9 of Cuckservative, “Christianity and Cuckservativism”. As my co-author, John Red Eagle, is agnostic, the task of addressing that particular topic naturally fell to me. I go into considerably more detail in the book, particularly concerning how Churchianity relates to various trends that have swept the American churches, but a few excerpts from it should help provide a better understanding of what Churchianity observably is before we attempt to define it.

Many churches have reduced Christianity to the parable of the Good Samaritan, to such an extent that their religion could be more reasonably described as Good Samaritanism than Christianity. And while they subscribe chiefly to salvation through works and societally-approved attitudes rather than faith, they nevertheless possess complete and utter faith in the intrinsic goodness of foreigners.

Churchians (for it would not be strictly accurate to describe them as Christians) are liars and deceivers. They worship the god of Babel, not the Christian God. They serve the world, not Jesus Christ.

But where does this religious obsession with improving the world through works come from, when it has been absent from Christian theology for the greater part of two thousand years? Indeed, the entire conceptual core of Christianity is fundamentally based on the nature of the world not only being fallen and imperfect and ruled by an immortal spirit of evil, but remaining that way until the Son returns, the Prince of the World is cast down, and the Kingdom of Heaven is established.

Justice, in both Greek philosophy and proper Christian theology, is “rectitude of the will”, as can be seen in Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, specifically Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 58, Article 1. And in the Christian sense, rectitude of the will is defined by conformity with God’s will, which can be debated, but being immutable, is assuredly not defined by the ever-mutating social justice narrative.

So social justice Christianity, or Good Samaritanism, or Churchianity, all amount to the same thing: a false form of Christianity that cloaks itself in Christian rhetoric while denying both the conceptual core of Christianity and the fundamental nature of the justice to which it nominally dedicates itself. And these false forms all flow from a concept that is considerably newer than Christianity, although it is related to an older religion.

The term tikkun olam is from the rabbinic literature known as the Mishnah, which dates back to 1492 and is believed to come from an oral tradition that may be as much as a thousand years older. It appears in the phrase mip’nei tikkun ha-olam “to indicate that a practice should be followed not because it is required by Biblical law, but because it helps avoid social disharmony.”

The phrase is often translated as “for the sake of the healing of the world”, which is why the expression appears in English as a directive to “heal the world” or “fix the world”, but a better translation is “for the sake of the perfection of the world”.

In other words, the cuckservatives and other Churchians have elevated a literally extra-Biblical post-Christian concept that flies directly in the face of genuine Christian theology to a super-Scriptural level, then used it as the basis to judge both members of the Church and the Bible itself!

So, we can summarize all of this with the following definition:


Churchianity is social justice-converged pseudo-Christianity that cloaks itself in Christian rhetoric and trappings, follows the world rather than Jesus Christ, and seeks salvation through works instead of faith.


And if I can say this without sounding too eschatological, I expect it, or something very like it, will be the seed of the religion that worships Antichrist in the place of Jesus Christ.

Never go full cuck

Andrew Klavan raises the Churchian flag and waves it proudly in defense of globalism:

Fantastic and irrational too is the philosophy of the alt-right with their smarmy pseudo-intellectual white isolationism (it’s their make-believe belief that white people aren’t necessarily better than other people, but only have an equal right to protect their “white” culture and territory). The alt-right website Vox Populi roundly declares “The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.” What blithering silliness.

Should we leave aside the fact that these nationalist anti-semites revel in the worship of a globalist Jew? Nah, let’s pause here to mock them for it. And these European nations that form one of their “pillars:” since those nations have been at war with one another for the last two thousand years, it seems important to ask which one they mean? The industrious Germans or the delightfully carefree Italians? The Spanish with their part-Muslim inheritance or the English with their pagan Viking mix? And while we’re at it, which one of each of these people is representative? Is Hitler more Aryan than Thomas Mann who detested him? Is John Keats or John Christie the more exemplary Englishman?

The best reason to judge people, actions and belief systems individually is to keep from talking crap. I too believe that Western culture from around 1500 to 1915 was one of the pinnacles of human achievement. Part of its genius — I would say the core of it — lay in the loving universalism of its religion which ultimately led its free nations to welcome all people willing to participate in the secular version of that creed.

The genius of the West is not, and has never been, “the loving universalism of its religion”. Klavan’s grasp of the West doesn’t even rise to the level of Wikipedia.

Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Western world, Western society or European civilization is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe. The term is applied to European countries and countries whose history is strongly marked by European immigration, colonisation, and influence, such as the continents of the Americas and Australasia, whose current demographic majority is of European ethnicity, and is not restricted to the continent of Europe.


Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of Western culture, with the world’s first democratic system of government and major advances in philosophy, science and mathematics. Greece was followed by Rome, which made key contributions in law, government and engineering. Western culture continued to develop with the Christianisation of Europe during the Middle Ages, the reform and modernization triggered by the Renaissance, and with globalization by successive European empires, that spread European ways of life and European educational methods around the world between the 16th and 20th centuries.


Christianity. The European nations. The Graeco-Roman legacy. Such “blithering silliness”. Anyhow, it’s clear that the cuckservatives and their (((friends))) are running with “the West is universal” theme in order to sell their globalist anti-nationalism.

And as for his notion of Jesus Christ as “a globalist Jew”, it sounds to this Christian as if Mr. Klavan is more than ready to bow down and worship Antichrist, should he appear and dangle the prospects of world peace in front of everyone.

The Grey Lady shivers in her bloomers

The New York Times addresses the Alt-Right:

As Hillary Clinton assailed Donald J. Trump on Thursday for fanning the flames of racism embraced by the “alt-right,” the community of activists that tends to lurk anonymously in the internet’s dark corners could hardly contain its glee.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech was intended to link Mr. Trump to a fringe ideology of conspiracies and hate, but for the leaders of the alt-right, the attention from the Democratic presidential nominee was a moment in the political spotlight that offered a new level of credibility. It also provided a valuable opportunity for fund-raising and recruiting….

Although the alt-right tried to put its best foot forward, there was plenty of venom directed at Mrs. Clinton, and the conspiracy theories ran wild. A popular attack was the continuing effort to raise questions about her health.

 Matt Forney @basedmattforney
She’s winding down now. If she stays on stage any longer she might die. #AltRightMeans #AltRight #HillarysAltRightSpeech

By addressing the alt-right in such a prominent setting, Mrs. Clinton ran the risk of helping its cause. But Richard Cohen, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, dismissed the idea that Mrs. Clinton was doing the public a disservice by drawing attention to the alt-right.

“I think every public official ought to denounce racism, and that is what Secretary Clinton did,” Mr. Cohen said, noting that the alt-right ideology opposes the notion that all people are equal.

I think it’s interesting that the mainstream media is playing it pretty tame thus far. To be honest, the cucks and cons have been attacking the Alt-Right with considerably more vitriol than the mainstream media has to date.

My thought is that the conservatives are much more frightened of the Alt-Right than the Left is right now, because they know they are vulnerable to being replaced by it as the primary opposition to the Left. To the Left, on the other hand, the Alt-Right is actually seen as a preferable opponent, because it’s not even necessary to caricature us, we really believe many of the things they only claim the conservatives believe.

The Left is mistaken, of course, because their perspective is based on the current status quo, whereas the Alt-Right’s perspective is based on where the current trends are leading, and the likely reaction of the populace to those trends.

Playing the Buckley card

No one who has read Cuckservative, or, for that matter, SJWAL, will be surprised by the reaction of the conservative opinion leaders to the rise of the Alt-Right.


Erick Erickson‏@EWErickson
Conservatives must again go Buckley against the alt-right.

(smiles grimly)

That which is dead can never die, though we are well assured that the cucks will try.

The problem conservatives are facing is that they can’t kick out those who have already left. This reminds me of one SF-SJW’s wailing about me, which some of you will probably recall: “How do you bring the weight of community disapproval on someone who isn’t part of the community?”

Answer: you don’t. You can’t. Buckley doomed the Right’s chance to preserve America by reading out the John Birch Society from the conservative movement. He and his successors have purged everyone from Sam Francis to Ann Coulter, all of the most intelligent and foresighted political writers on the Right. Now the most talented and innovative minds on the Right want absolutely nothing to do with conservatives or conservatism; we know perfectly well what they’re going to do to us whenever we choose to believe our observations instead of their dogma.

Erickson is only one of many conservatives who don’t understand that the Alt-Right doesn’t give a damn about their sacred Constitution, their 10 Kirkean principles, their small government ideology that can’t get rid of a single federal agency, their immigration amnesties, and their conservatism that hasn’t conserved so much as women’s bathrooms. We don’t want positions at their think tanks, two-minute guest slots on Fox News, or book contracts from Thomas Nelson and Regnery for tedious my-eyes-glaze-over tomes with a picture of the author and an American flag on the cover.

Every member of the Alt-Right understands one thing: none of those efforts and none of that edifice matters one iota if the USA does not remain a heavily white country, because whites, and specifically, white Americans who are the posterity of the Founders, are the only people in the history of the world who have ever supported small government and individual liberty in statistically significant numbers.

Yes, it is certainly possible for an individual, of any race, culture, or heritage, to admire and accept and adopt the ways of another people. Hollywood loves to make movies about people who do sort of thing. But the observable fact throughout all of recorded human history is that those individuals are very rare. In fact, that’s why they make movies about them. No other people, from the very numerous Chinese to the very smallest American Indian tribe, have shown any interest in adopting and living according to the ideals of 18th century Englishmen, the Common Law, or the Rights of Englishmen, no matter how much they enjoy, appreciate, and attempt to appropriate the fruits of that culture.

And it is the height of absurdity to believe that they will see fit to permit others to live according to them in any society that is even remotely democratic, as we have already seen from the previous waves of immigration.

As one guy rightly responded: “Buckley had a nation that was 90% white, you don’t. That’s why you need to listen to us.”


More importantly, movement conservatives have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they will not fight for their so-called principles, not even limited government. So there is no reason to pay any attention to them at all. Whether they join Hillary Clinton and the Left in shooting at us or whether they suddenly begin playing “hello, fellow Alt-Righters”, we’re not going to follow their lead.

The rise of the #AltRight

James Delingpole explains it, and why the #AltRight is not wrong, in The Spectator:

Should more mainstream conservatives be worried by this? Well yes, of course, but they have largely themselves to blame. It’s why the alt-right refers to them disparagingly as ‘cuckservatives’ — that is, cuckolds whose spinelessness, compromise and me-too virtue signalling has enabled the social justice warriors of the progressive left to take so much territory.

You could argue that what has happened to conservative politics is not dissimilar from what has happened in Syria and Iraq: when there’s a lawless space, a power vacuum is created which sucks in the most aggressive and committed players and in the process crushes all the moderates.

The alt-right are, if you like, the vigilantes of conservatism. The regular authorities didn’t do their job to protect the conservative community from the marauding gangs of social justice warriors (think Mao’s Red Guard — only with hipster beards or feminist–blue hair) strutting round the neighbourhood enforcing their oppressive rules. So the alt-right stepped in instead. And are now preparing to claim the spoils.

Or as Red Eagle and I put it in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America:

What is now taking place in Europe is a microcosm of what is happening, on a larger scope and timescale, in the United States of America. Although the European population of 508 million is larger than the U.S. population of 320 million, the 28 member nations of the E.U. fit into about half the land taken up by the 50 united States. Moreover, unlike the heterogeneous American “nation of immigrants”, the European nations are homogeneous and distinct, with long histories, traditions, and collective memories that stretch back for centuries. That is why a much smaller number of immigrants arriving in a much shorter period of time has triggered the powerful nationalistic response that is already overturning governments and will ultimately shatter the European Union.

That is also why it is important to realize that the same divisive process is well underway in the United States, albeit at a larger order of magnitude. And one of the tragic ironies of American politics is that it is the very group of people who most proudly proclaim their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and to the traditional values of America’s founding fathers, conservatives, who have helped lead the way to America’s decline and eventual collapse. They have done so by forgetting the central purpose of the very document they revere.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America contains an extremely important phrase that is almost always ignored by those who appeal to it, or to the men who wrote it, in defense of immigration. It states:


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key phrase is this: “to ourselves and our posterity.” The blessings of liberty are not to be secured to all the nations of the world, to the tired and huddled masses, or to the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of other lands. They are to be secured to our children, and their children, and their children’s children.

To sacrifice their interests to the interests of children in other lands is to betray both past and future America. It is to permit an alien posterity, like the newly hatched cuckoo in another bird’s nest, to eliminate our own, and in doing so, defeat the purpose of the Constitution. It is, like the cuckolded husband, to raise the children of another man instead of one’s own sons and daughters.

It is, in a word, cuckservative.

Conservatives don’t get it

I genuinely like Ross Douthat. He is generally honest, and he genuinely tries to make sense of what is going on, most of the time, even though he reliably fails to understand what is happening on the right side of the political spectrum or why the Alt-Right exists.

Then finally, among men who were promised pliant centerfolds and ended up single with only high-speed internet to comfort them, the men’s sexual revolution has curdled into a toxic subculture, resentful of female empowerment in all its forms.

This is where you find Trump’s strongest (and, yes, strangest) fans. He’s become the Daddy Alpha for every alpha-aspiring beta male, whose mix of moral liberation and misogyny keeps the Ring-a-Ding-Ding dream alive.

There aren’t nearly enough of these fans to win him the election. Steinem’s revolution (Clintonian complications and all) should easily beat Hef’s at the ballot box this year.

But the cultural conflict between these two post-revolutionary styles — between frat guys and feminist bluestockings, Gamergaters and the diversity police, alt-right provocateurs and “woke” dudebros, the mouthbreathers who poured hate on the all-female “Ghostbusters” and the tastemakers who pretended it was good — is likely here to stay. With time and Christianity’s further decline, it could eclipse older culture war battles; in the pop culture landscape, it already does.

Ten years ago, liberals pined for a post-religious right, a different culture war.

Be careful what you wish for.

Douthat simply doesn’t understand that the Alt-Right is not the 60’s counter to feminism, we are the nationalist reaction to conservatism’s failure. The issues that absorb him are sideshows. The Alt-Right is on the rise across the West because Douthat, and the conservatism he represents as the New York Times‘s token conservative, completely failed to conserve the nation.

They will call us fascists. They will call us racists. They will call us Nazis. They will call us sexists. They will call us anti-semitic. They will call us ultra-nationalists. They will call us white supremacists.

And whether those charges are true or not, we don’t care. Because we prefer to live in Western civilization, among civilized Western people.

The conservative void

Conservatism, by definition, is unprincipled, anti-ideological pose that relies on rhetoric rather than dialectic. It was literally defined that way by the man who articulated American conservatism, Russell Kirk:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

Translation: Conservatism is FEELZ.

Doesn’t that explain a great deal about both the conservative failure of the last 60 years as well as their inept, rhetorical, fainting-couch responses to the rise of the Alt-Right?

The amusing thing is that they consider themselves “the hard-headed realists”, but they don’t even have an ideological foundation. Their intellectual movement isn’t even built on sand! It’s built on “a state of mind”, something that is intrinsically malleable and subject to emotional manipulation.

Say what you will about National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos! Conservatism is intellectual nihilism, it is an ideological void.

If you are of the Right, stop calling yourself a conservative. It’s absurd. Not only has conservatism failed to conserve anything, it was as doomed from the start as the atheists attempting to fight a religious war without a religion.

One can’t win a gunfight without a gun, and one can’t win a cultural war without an ideology.

Jerry Pournelle, for one, understands this.

Conservatism isn’t an ideology; Russell Kirk called his book “The Conservative Mind”, and when specifics were demanded he wrote a book for his times, A Program For Conservatives; not an ideology.

EEK! the cuckservative squeaked

Docweasel needs to virtue-signal harder. I think there may have been a few Chileans near the Antarctic side of South America who didn’t hear him:

That image posted at the top of post isn’t what I’d call “Christian”- I’m the last one to be over-sensitive or pulling the race card, but that image is flat out racist.

No one who calls themselves Christian or bemoans the loss of Christian ethics has any business posting something like that, or else they have a thin grasp of exactly what Christianity is in the first place.

I only started reading this site regularly a few months ago when a link from somewhere else brought me here. If this is the tone I don’t guess this is the place for me.

Cucks are always liars. In 87 comments, he is, quite literally, the very first one to be oversensitive and to pull out the race card.

Docweasel is a good programmed little cuck who believes “thou shalt not criticize minorities or portray them in any unflattering manner” is the 11th Commandment. And he just knows that the avoidance of being called racist is the true Christian’s highest priority. He would call Jesus Christ himself racist for comparing Samaritans to dogs.

This definitely isn’t the place for you, Docweasel. The Hell on Earth that is being made is the place for you. You would do well to leave. You and your Churchian kind are not welcome here. Go signal your virtue somewhere else.

As I once wrote on Twitter, I don’t hate blacks, I just don’t expect them to be white. What I hate is white virtue-signalers. And more from Twitter:

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the god now worshipped by Churchians is Equality. To them, Jesus Christ is the way to Equality.

Ming the Merciless ‏@_Emperor_Ming_
It’s like the Left subverted the Church and turned it into a vehicle to advance their agenda, or something!

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
If only someone had warned Christians about false teachers infiltrating the Church in order to mislead them!

Consider the following train of logic:

  1. Christians are warned that false teachers would infiltrate the Church.
  2. What many Church leaders are teaching today is observably different from historical Christian teachings and contradicts the Bible itself.
  3. Who, then, are the false teachers? 

The fruits of cuckservative Churchianity



Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
– Matthew 7:15-20

If an apple tree brings forth a withered pear, it is not a good apple tree, but a corrupt one. So it is with men.

There was a time when Americans considered America blessed by God. What sort of madman would dare to make that claim now?

UPDATE: the cartoon was created and commissioned by Faith and Heritage. Clearly an organization that understands the concept of good rhetoric.

Not so, however, with ‘cuckservative.’ Not only does it not suffer from the vagueries of its close equivalents; it also cuts much deeper because its targets cannot be in doubt. It lays finger on the more personal dimensions of treason – the relinquishment of one’s own house, wife, and children to invasive predators. The power of its poignancy lies in the fact that it highlights the abdication of a man’s most intimate duties. It brings home the implications of liberalism on border and race issues as violating the principle of 1 Timothy 5:8, disregard of one’s own family. It impugns the manhood of its subjects, and concomitantly any and all professions of a man’s Christian faith as well. So yes, the acerbic potency of this word is couched in the most basic allegiances and undergirded by the biblical understanding of familial duty. Even if it would seem indecipherably archaic to post-family Marxists, those yet anchored to traditional categories, however so tenuously, still comprehend the gravity and accuracy of the charge.

The caterwauling it has evoked from so many so-called conservatives is indicative of not only its power, but the identity of those to whom it most applies. As the old chestnut goes, “When you pitch a rock into a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one you hit.” Its targets simply cannot be mistaken. Yes, they may cavil that allusions to cuckoldry are somehow just not cricket. But none putting on the most delicate Victorian airs presently ever imagined the term cuckold as improper before now; in the works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, or the whole roster of English literati since, it appears no one ever took the term ‘cuckold’ as unchristian, uncharitable, or inappropriate till the dawning of the age of the Social Justice Warrior and Neo-Christianity. Clearly, the reason so many Beltway Conservatives* balk at it is that it crystallizes the depth of their betrayal and heaps burning coals upon their heads.

I have to say, I kind of like these guys.

Ben Shapiro is glad you hate him

Or at least he would like you to think so. After all, he must maintain his pose as a brave conservative culture warrior, or people might figure out that he’s a fraud.

Supreme Dark Lord@voxday
My readers really hate @benshapiro.

“Chickenhawk does not even BEGIN to describe this supercilious neo-con asshole.”


Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro
Good.

Supreme Dark Lord@voxday
You’ve always been a fraud, Ben. I still have your emails to me when you were full of self-doubt about being a little parrot.

Supreme Dark Lord@voxday
I told you to strike out and become your own man. Instead, you chickenhawked and went media whore. It was a foolish call.

Supreme Dark Lord@voxday
Your problem is that you’re a puppet and you know it. Here’s the thing. So do we.

What many of you probably don’t know is that Ben and I used to be colleagues of a sort at WND. My columns were much more popular, as I was reliably the number three most-read, behind Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan. Ben’s readership was never more than about one-tenth of mine, but he was a smart little kid and did a good job of parroting the usual Republican boilerplate.

We corresponded a few times and were on friendly, if distant, terms. I mean, what do you talk about with a little kid whose idea of a good time is launching obvious rhetorical attacks at liberals? As he matured, he gradually began to question the ideas he was parroting, and reached the point where he considered quitting the media game.

I’ll have to dig out the emails to figure out exactly what I told him, but if I recall correctly, I encouraged him to resist the temptation to become a media whore. I understood the allure, as it was a poisoned apple that was also offered to me, but perhaps it was easier for me to turn it down since I was living in Europe and already established in the game development world.

Ben, unfortunately, couldn’t resist the apple, or the easy way forward, writing whatever his backers told him to write. I haven’t read him much since he wrote those dreadful, chickenshit columns in 2005, so I don’t know how much of what he writes he genuinely believes now and how much he is still parroting. Of course, the human mind being the incredible rationalizing machine that it is, it’s entirely possible that he has come to believe what he’s been told to say.

What I found most amusing is the way that the Littlest Chickenhawk’s supporters alternate between crowing about what a formidable debater he is, and trying to excuse the way he ran away from a proposed debate on free trade with me.

Gone Fishing
LOL! All these Ben haters. You guys wouldn’t stand a chance in hell vs him in a debate on social issues. #CryMeAriver

Gone Fishing ‏@jgfleet661
Shapiro kicks the ass of real decision makers in this country in debates. He does with facts not feelings.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
I will debate Ben on any topic. He’s already run away from me on a proposed free trade debate.

Gone Fishing ‏@jgfleet661
 ????! Yeah, he totally ran away from you. I mean, you’re the SUPREME DARK LORD! There’s no way he could beat you, right?

 Valerie ‏@vpak77
yes, you two are definitely not in the same league. That is true.

ryedog™
Totally, it’d be a complete waste of Ben’s time.

Gone Fishing ‏@jgfleet661
He has to run. He’s busy debating important people on major news networks all over the country. #PuttingInWork

Some things never change.