Before the editors of National Review discovered that women as warriors was against natural law, National Review Senior Editor Jonah Goldberg* was delighted with the message of feminist empowerment that it sends. Just four months ago Goldberg was enthralled by the girlpower message of his real life Wonder Women “passing” Army Ranger training (emphasis mine):
Around the time little Laura’s school was cracking down on Wonder Woman lunchboxes, two women, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver, passed the Army Ranger training course for the first time. The news was hailed across the country as a huge step forward for women.
Are these women role models or not? Are they heroes? Or should they be condemned for their willingness to use violence when necessary? Maybe Laura should get a Griest and Haver lunchbox and find out.
*In my original version of the post I incorrectly attributed the Wonder Woman article to Senior Editor Rich Lowry. Goldberg wrote the Wonder Woman article. Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review, and Goldberg is a senior editor.
Hoo, boy, don’t tell Micha Elyi!
I’m sure that Goldberg’s praise of the rigged Ranger qual for women was approved by his wife in advance…that’s what all the manly he-men do.
Pingback: He was for it before he was against it. – Manosphere.com
Cuck’s gonna cuck.
I’m just surprised the National Review is still in business.
“A huge step forward for women”… right off the plank into the shark infested waters below.
One small step forward for women – one large step toward the extinction of western society.
History will record that women never in the history of world had it so good as under the patriarchal system of Christian civilization in the west and just like the paradise of Eden they would not let well enough alone and the result is death, pain and suffering.
Jonah used to be a lot better. But that was a decade-plus ago.
Goldbergs questions may have been rhetorical. The article cited was about a school banning Wonder Woman lunch boxes because the superhero used violence. In fact, all superhero lunch boxes were banned.
I think he may have been juxtaposing the female Army Rangers who were hailed as heroes with the banning of a female superhero lunchbox. Why is one to be celebrated and the other banned since both will use violence to carry out their jobs?
Of course finding inconsistency on the left is pretty easy to do. It’s the only time they are consistent.
I always admired how the French handled women in the military, which was very appropriate to the qualities and skills women are able to offer to the Army.
The French Colonial Forces utilized women in their BMC (Bordel Mobile de Campagne) or “mobile field brothel.” The B.M.C’s would travel with the troops in combat zones and some of the women died heroically, serving as emergency nurses under fire. Of course, their presence was pure poison to women army personnel- as some wags put it, because they constituted “unfair competition” -and in general the French Army in Indochina kept them pretty much out of sight of American newsmen and officials.
“You can just imagine the howls if some blabbermouth comes out with a statement that American funds are used to maintain bordellos for the French Army” said one Colonel. As it was, the girls didn’t cost the Army one penny because the soldiers paid them for their services. There was one case in which two BMC girls nearly ended up with the croix de guerre for service beyond the call of duty. [Get your mind out of the gutter… they performed brilliantly under fire after the unit they were traveling with was ambushed]. The leadership in Hanoi, however, decided that awarding the medals would be “inopportune” at the time. There was also a BMC at the ill-fated outpost of Dien Bien Phu and the girls performed heroically as auxiliary nurses without receiving any publicity for their services.
General Patton, who always understood the needs of the troops, was said to have been willing to experiment with the idea but gave it up when he was made to realize the ruckus kicked up from outraged mothers and wives in America would have resulted in a Congressional uproar that would have slowed the war down by months.
From “Street Without Joy:The French Debacle in Indochina” pages 134-136
Jonah used to be a lot better. But that was a decade-plus ago.
Or maybe he used to look better back then because you didn’t know as much as now?
That’s the position I find myself in on a number of issues. Knowing more leads me to realize how wrong I was in the past. That’s part of learning, and what frustrates me about many people who self-label as “conservative” is an apparent stone-wall refusal to learn anything new.
@AR
Knowing more leads me to realize how wrong I was in the past. That’s part of learning, and what frustrates me about many people who self-label as “conservative” is an apparent stone-wall refusal to learn anything new.
Plus cela change, plus ce est pareil
@Patrick Albanese
If all he wanted to do was show the feminist hypocracy, he could have noted that Wonder Woman was created as feminist agitprop. Here is the left once again eating its own. Clearly that is part of his argument, but he dives in along with the feminists in his rhetoric, asking are these women who passed ranger school not role models? Are they not heroic? You are suggesting that he is actually arguing that they aren’t role models, and not heroic. I see nothing in the text to support that claim. Do you have examples you can point to (in the article or elsewhere) where Goldberg argues that such women aren’t heroic role models?
Or he could have, you know, put two examples of hypocrisy against each other. WHICH HE DID.
From the article, only highlighting the context bit you glossed over:
“There’s an added irony here. . . . The news was hailed across the country as a huge step forward for women.”
It would be the equivalent of an atheist asking you “is Jesus Lord? Is He God?” Do you really think such rhethorical questions are a confession by the atheist? Most people can figure out such are challenges designed to hang you upon the affirmation.
Not to mention that most of the proceeding paragraphs mentioned and focused on MALE heroes.
You want to get on Goldberg for being feminist or whatever, fine, but get a better article man, this is weak, WEAK sauce that only convinces the converted.
Should have been, “were passed through a version of the Army Ranger course.” It’s been fairly well documented that the two women were CLEPed through the course in a way to ensure “mission success.”
I’ve idly wondered what I would say or how I would react if a woman wearing a Ranger tab walked into my office….
Perhaps Jonah can write a book for Cuckservatives clarifying how to become an utter failure in the culture war, and how to completely jettison one’s principles every time the opportunity to grovel to women and castigate “weak men” presents itself.
Cuckservatives would lap it up, and he could make a fortune in the process. Of course, he would have to run it by “the Boss” first.
Hoo, boy, don’t tell Micha Elyi!
Indeed. He gets incensed when anyone points out that Jonah Goldberg is a CUCKservative, and arguably the Grand Poobah of Cuckservatives.
Nevertheless, I did like his book Liberal Fascism. Now that he has to discuss contemporary issues, his ideas have become suspect.
@AR:
I haven’t changed as much as I’d like to think, I just understand more. But my point was more in general. What of seen of Jonah (and most of the NRO crew) when I bother to check in these days just confirms that they got “converged” like the rest of the media. On some retrospect, I think we missed a concerted effort to shift all of the “Right” media after Lawrence vs Texas. That everyone was pretty much in lock-step (in all of Washington) behind the Iraq War could be blamed, but there was a lot more going on than just the War.
Though in Jonah’s case, like most of the DC-based writers, I think they’ve simply become part of the establishment. And that establishment is evil but they’re card-carrying members.
@natewinchester
I get the argument, it just doesn’t hold water in this case. You are arguing that Goldberg thinks these women aren’t heroes and role models when he asks the question, just like an atheist rhetorically asking about the existence of God. This would be a striking position for anyone to make across the political spectrum. This doesn’t fit in the context of the article.
This only weakens your argument. He likens the heroism of Wonder Woman to the heroism of men, then asks rhetorically if the women who completed the Ranger training aren’t heroes and role models. First he likens Wonder Woman to male heroes, then he mocks women who completed Ranger training.
That’s a bit unfair to the NR crowd. They’ve actually been remarkably consistent in this area.
When it was a question of whether women should have the honor of bearing the Ranger seal and representing the Ranger ideals, they stated that no chauvinistic man should get in the way of a woman’s aspirations to do so. And so women were given the distinction of becoming Rangers.
When it was a question of whether women should be called upon to serve in grimy combat for the benefit of their country, they stated that no cowardly man should ask a woman to suffer so that he might live. And so women were exempted from the duties of the military draft.
What ‘s most important is this: At no point should any woman ever have to sacrifice her own desires or comfort because the needs and the egos of selfish men are getting in their way. This is a principle from which the editors of the National Review have never wavered.
Sometimes its not clear how alien the views Darlock espouses (and I agree with) are to most people, men and women. We can remark that it really does take a pill to wake up, and that is a rare event, but its easy for me to forget how rare. RooshV, in my opinion an incredible pathetic loser, held a press conference and it was covered by some media. He said some very basic things that red pill people would agree with amidst his other stuff. He is a very poor standard bearer for lots of reasons, but it was covered in the media. It was covered at Reason.com a place I thought would be open to some of his ideas if not him personally. I was unprepared for just how horrified the commenters were by the few simple ideas he mentioned.
Jonah Goldberg is an intellectual right of center guy who leans libertarian. He is not a traditionalist and it is hardly surprising that he takes the “conservative” feminist view of most things. Its not surprising that NR does, because almost everyone in the modern world everywhere does. We are a tiny island of people holding onto true things, but we are a tiny island and our views are disgusting to the majority of average Americans. The majority of the modern world views the idea that women need to submit to a husband as barbaric hold overs from an ancient age, and despite Dalrock showing how its a Bible based teaching most Christians reject it. This view will never again hold purchase with anything but a tiny proportion of the population.
So, its not more surprising to me that NR does not hold any sort of patriarchal line. Because that day is over. We are the refugees of the past. I read here to figure out how to transmit the truth to my children and help them disarm the false arguments of the world, not to delude myself that this view is catching, spreading, or becoming more popular. Sadly, its never going to happen because no one even imagines its the answer.
The expectation that any public figure swim against this tide is probably hopeless. Hoping a political party supports such a small rare view is delusional. I am not even sure what the point of these posts are because it makes as much sense as being surprised the Huffington post is feminist. I guess it is useful to point out that everyone is feminist – NR included. Its useful to point out we should follow God, not movements like “conservatism”. I bet FirstThings has written articles arguing against feminist submission and that is a super intellectual traditionalist site.
[OH hey – I searched FirstThings before posting – an argument about which is right in marriage egalitarianism vs complementarianism (thats the Christian Overton Window that Darlock has documented). And an article about why you should submit that does not explicitly say their view.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/09/you-shall-give-to-him-freely
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/08/obedient-wives-helpless-husbands
]
No, Dalrock, I’m arguing that you’re picking a weakass piece of evidence because a rhetorical question is not enough evidence to stake out someone’s thought on ANY matter without greater context.
Dammit, Dalrock, did you even read the thing? This is EXACTLY what leftists do every time they hang they racism charge against someone. They take a statement and decry a person as racist for its phrasing because if the speaker wasn’t racist, then they would have totally phrased it in a different way (a way usually determined arbitrarily by the accuser). Then if anyone points out that pretty much nobody saw it that way, the accuser demands evidence of a lack of racism elsewhere or twists existing context to double down upon the charge.
This entire thing comes off as “Jonah doesn’t write like me, so therefore he is guilty of not being me!”
It’s obvious that he thinks of these two women as heroes. He uses them as the climax of his piece over lunch boxes being banned…
He’s literally saying, if we ban Wonder Woman lunch boxes because Wonder Woman uses violence to stop evil than why do we celebrate two women for finishing the Ranger training who will obviously go on to use violence to stop so called evil….
If he didn’t think of them as heroes, just like the men who stopped the gunman on the train, then his article would no make any sense.
Jonah and the whole rabble over there are shameless, flaming neo cons. I’d like to think they make Buckley turn over in his grave but he enabled the monster once he turned his back on loyal old friends like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran. National Review in the 80’s was formative in my intellectual development, today I wouldn’t use it to line a bird’s cage.
@Dash Riprock
I think we have to conclude at long last that the “fusionism” of the post-war years, founded by Buckley, which created the New Right has proven to be an abysmal failure, and has totally destroyed the Old Right conservatism we used to have in this country. Blending 19th century classical liberalism (the rejects of the Prog Era and New Deal) with traditional WASP conservatism, and then adding in the post-counterculture, leftover FDR liberals, and thinking you could create a cohesive movement….was an idiotic idea. I worked for a while, during the Cold War, and before the Left’s March through the Institutions had taken full effect, but it’s coming apart at the seams, before our very eyes. This last gasp of the Nixon/Regan New Right coalition may forestall the inevitable if it succeeds, but if the demographic and cultural changes proceed unchecked, this will all be academic.
For those who continue to talk about saving “society” or “civilization” or preventing it’s destruction, I would like to know what it is you are talking about. How do you define that term? What it is you are saying that must be preserved?
I do not hold society with most of the west, and modern western culture degrades, rather than civilizing. So, with the presumption that you are not babbling nonsense phrases, I do not have a point of reference to understand what it is you refer to.
Kevin said,
RooshV, in my opinion an incredible pathetic loser,
How? Has he not gotten more exposure than anyone else in the sphere? Or are you saying that Game is a fraud, and doing well with women is not a learnable skill?
Roosh has his flaws, but what you said is precisely what a cuckservative would say, because cuckservatives hate it when men take action to improve their romantic prospects (yet applaud women for it).
RooshV, in my opinion an incredible pathetic loser, held a press conference and it was covered by some media.
Jealous much? What are you doing about these issues? You taking action like Roosh is? Where was your press conference? I must have missed it.
Sounds like an incredible pathetic loser’s opinion……
I like Roosh. His books Bang and Day Bang were my introduction to the PUA mindset and I drop many footnotes to RooshV in my book.
@oldfashionedfellow
You make a very valid point. I think it is clear that the hodgepodge of ideas that we knew as “conservatism”, that you and I grew up with, has now ceased to mean anything. I always liked Buckley’s definition of conservatism, which was to stand athwart the flow of history yelling stop. But the kind of conservative “fusion” you speak of which flowered in the 70’s and rode to power in the 80’s would never have existed but for the Cold War. You are absolutely right to make that point. In many ways it defined itself solely by a strident opposition to communism and all those who were its fellow travelers. And to that extent it succeed. But when communism fell, it lost its raison d’etre. And has been lost ever since truth be told.
Thus today if “conservatism” means what the folks at NR believe it to be, invade the world/invite the world, Wall Street uber alles, and just general cuckservativeness, count me out.
I do think there is a sense of “America First” remerging into the national consciousness and I find that plenty encouraging. And yes vey “conservative” . So there might be life in the old girl yet. We’ll see.
joshtheaspie @ February 10, 2016 at 8:27 pm:
“For those who continue to talk about saving “society” or “civilization” or preventing it’s destruction, I would like to know what it is you are talking about. How do you define that term? What it is you are saying that must be preserved?”
Civilization means private property, rule of law, sanitation, plentiful food & water, reliable electrical grid, good medicine, reliable medium of exchange and of course leisure time & air conditioning. You people looking forward to the Collapse have no clue what you’re asking for. I was near ground zero for the Northridge Earthquake and trust me, you WILL miss civilization once it’s gone.
Evil men make our society sick; that’s no reason to kill our society in retaliation. Do the wicked benefit from me keeping the lights on? Yes, but God Himself does nice things for the wicked, too… up to and including the Cross.
God is real. God will rescue us, either personally or by restoring His Church. Our job is to hold out until then, not take matters into our own hands like Saul did.
About RooshV
My personal opinions of Roosh were tangential to my post so should have left them out. That being said…
Uhhh – the man has based his life on banging women. This is pathetic.
1) Its morally incontinent. Living your life with you physical needs and passions as your forefront is what an older generation would have called depraved. Even irreligious people and philosophers recognize hedonism as a choice for losers. He is ashamed to tell his mother the life he lives.
I would no more celebrate that accomplishment than I would this guy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3292779/The-world-s-fattest-man-nearly-1000-lbs-going-weightloss-surgery-tomorrow-second-chance-normal-body.html
2) Its not that hard to bang lots of women. Oh I know, I should try I it, I am jealous, blah blah. Its easy to talk big on the internet and no one knows me from anyone else. But, in a world where almost every woman in the world is a slut from ages 20-30 are we really still enamored with someone who can have lots of sex? Big deal. As I said above, as impressive as someone who can eat alot of food or watch alot of porn.
3) Roosh is a self promoting entertainer, not a serious thinker. Don’t mistake him for anything else especially when there are serious thinkers in the manosphere.
@PokeSalad
Roosh’s press conference was in response to his family and the bizarre allegations against him. It is not changing anything and will be forgotten within a week or two. Having read the transcript its not clear whether he did more harm that good since to outsiders he comes across as a paranoid creeper. Personally, I don’t do anything beyond educate my sons and family. I never said I did.
@Anon
It is a learnable skill. Men should learn Game. Your false dilemma aside, the questions is totally not connected with what I was writing about. I do appreciate the further denigration of the term cuckservative from meaningless gibberish to even lower meaningless gibberish. Now a cuckservative is someone who disagrees with you about the value of someone inside the tiny subculture of the manosphere. Got it.
We don’t have to “kill it”. That’s being done already.
@Kevin
My personal opinions of Roosh were tangential to my post so should have left them out. That being said… Uhhh – the man has based his life on banging women. This is pathetic.
Show some respect. Banging a woman is what got you here in the first place.
@Gunner Q
Civilization means private property, rule of law, sanitation, plentiful food & water, reliable electrical grid, good medicine, reliable medium of exchange and of course leisure time & air conditioning. You people looking forward to the Collapse have no clue what you’re asking for. I was near ground zero for the Northridge Earthquake and trust me, you WILL miss civilization once it’s gone.
First of all, I am fully aware that I will not enjoy any collapse that may occur, and that it might well kill me. I do not pretend that I will enjoy working 16 hours a day, and having to either die to roaving hoards of bandits, or that I will wind up under an authoritative duchebag who will force me to sacrifice on behalf of his own pleasures and women (many of whom are probably his pleasures).
However, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to willingly work 16 hours a day now to support the pleasures of authoritative duchebags and women (many of whom are the pleasures of the authoritative duchebags), and see the collapse happen at about the same time-frame anyway. It’s a bad sell.
Evil men make our society sick; that’s no reason to kill our society in retaliation. Do the wicked benefit from me keeping the lights on? Yes, but God Himself does nice things for the wicked, too… up to and including the Cross.
Yeah, no, I’m not working to kill the rule of law. I fought against said degridation, and have recognized the futility of fighting the degridation of the rule of law. Our private property rights have also degraded over time, and which kind of right, and for which reason is determined by whichever cheek of the uni-party happens to be sitting on the over-burdened chair of ‘civilization’.
Our medium of exchange (the dollar) has also been purposefully sabotaged, and any bill up for ‘fixing critical infrastructure’ is spent on black-lesbian multiculturalism, and adding chaotic energy sources to the power grid, instead of, say, reducing the fragility of the power grid.
The collapse is coming whatever I do, so I’m going to try to improve my health (both physical and spiritual), and choose to whom I direct my charity (such as maybe doing habitat for humanity for a widow and her children, or a widower and his kids), enjoy the leisure time and air conditioning while it lasts, and hope that in time a new, better empire will rise to replace our old and twisted one. New empires eventually replace the old ones. Just won’t be in my lifetime.
Oh, and as an additional note, one of the reasons we have a uni-party is that our first-past-the-post voting system only allows for two ‘main’ parties as a time, so the difference between the parties can be small, or mostly illusionary, and people will still complain that you’re ‘throwing your vote away’ and ‘spoiling the less-bad candidate’s chances’ if you vote for anything else, due to the spoiler effect. This allows the two parties to converge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v7XXSt9XRM
I hope the next republic that gets set up learns from that, and uses something more sensible, like “Instant Runoff”, also known as the “Alternate Vote”
http://instantrunoff.com/instant-runoff-home/
Kevin in the “Cowering in front of women” thread wrote:
Cuckservative, with few exceptions, is a word that signals the user is a retarded political neophyte more impressed with tantrums than the actual hard work of the political process.
Kevin this thread wrote:
Personally, I don’t do anything beyond educate my sons and family. I never said I did.
So, Kevin, it appears that you demand other men do actual hard work that you refuse to do.
Plus you find the word “cuckservative” offensive, for some reason or other…
“Cuckservative” is almost but not quite a useful portmanteau. I don’t like the term because it’s an obvious vulgar implication paired with a non-obvious and non-objective meaning behind it. In other words, it’s a junior-high school slur, like (just to invent an example) calling someone a carrot-licker: sure, it sounds like a sexual insult but does it mean anything, really?
The intent, I think, is to describe someone who is willing to be exploited and humiliated so long as he is offered the fig leaf of letting it appear to be his own idea. But that meaning has to be teased out of it with too much difficulty.
Dalrock, I do think you’re reading into Goldberg’s article more than what’s there.
Also, I’m in agreement with Craig and Kevin. “Cuckservative” is the language of vulgar children, not men.
“Cuckservative” isn’t a logical argument. It’s a kind of slap in the face, possibly a very deserved slap. There’s already a book out with the word in the title, both Kindle and hardback, very easy to find at Amazon…
My suggestion to those whose dainty feelings are offended by the word: get used to it, likely it wiill become more common in the current election cycle.
@Kevin Your points, TL;DR version:
1) Its morally incontinent.
2) Its not that hard to bang lots of women.
3) Roosh is a self promoting entertainer, not a serious thinker.
1. The guy is living his life on his terms and he’s presumably having fun and making money in the process. Let him.
2. Yes, it is. That’s what makes it impressive.
3. There is truth to this idea, but you should refer to response 1.
Your writing is saturated with FI foolishness.