Down below, Derek writes (to Heidi):
I’ll agree that there are pragmatic people who care only about the message/results (Boxer appears to be one of the few), but these are rare.
Part of the mission of this blog is to attempt to get younger men to think strategically. That aside, I was wrong when I wrote the reply you are here replying to.
Originally, Dalrock would annoy and harass feminists. He did a good job at this. I realized, this week, that he has not done this in quite some time (the better part of a year, by my estimation). Instead, Dalrock has recently devoted much of his time and energy to tearing down antifeminist men: Jason, Bnonn, you, the boys at Warhorn, and the list goes on…
When he’s not doing this, he’s pontificating on chivalry and courtly love, which, incidentally, he’s largely plagiarizing from Joseph Campbell.
Why is he doing this? I have some ideas, but they’re mere speculation.
If Dalrock were devoting the bulk of his time and energy to writing critical theory about feminism, I’d support him, even if he turned out to be a liberal bulldyke from the big apple. In fact, he’s not. He’s wasting time fighting my friends, and that opens him up to criticism, no matter what his identity might be.
I think I could make an ironically good argument for why this is a bad idea, but that’s a post for another time.
I’d be very interested in discussing that, whenever you get around to writing about it. I think it’d be productive and interesting.
Once again your insight serves you well my friend
Dalrock is attacking my friends… All anti feminists are on our side even if we disagree with one another on the finer points. Going after Bnonn, Warhorn ministries etc is just childish behavior on Dalrock’s part and it proves beyond any shadow of doubt now, that the man simply cannot take criticism of any kind, even if it’s done in love, and he will go after you and ban you so that he can sit in his isolated secluded bubble vomiting up his rhetoric without fear of being challenged…. The man is a coward
He doesn’t seem to realize that feminism is an insidious evil that destroys men, and eventually women too, so the last thing we should be doing is fighting on the inside amongst our own ranks…. We need men like Bnonn, Foster and others fighting the good fight and stand alongside them instead of seeing them as enemies like Dalrock does
I’m truly done with his bullshit Boxer, you yourself have a lot more insight and intelligence to see the issues of feminism, Marxism etc so I’m going to keep supporting you
I believe he is trying to be eaten last when the big bad new york apple bull dyke feminist comes-a-calling for the keys to (y)our internet / blog(s).
Frankly if he is fact plagiarizing from Campbell .. he should be called out for it.
No matter how good he was or the content was before .. that would invalidate any work he’s done.
And he knows it.
Fraud is a tricky game .. eventually you’ll have to reckon the difference of your tales and the truth .. Only he can’t control the comments of other boards when that happens. Hence why he may be trying to discredit others first.
This is my first coffee stop every morning .. so I’ll read it here first when it breaks.
I quit reading his stuff a while back because it was just wash, rinse, repeat over and over again as earl also noted yesterday. His comment section is less than worthless; really a waste of disk space more than anything else. I found him through his old charts and graphs stuff, which was interesting, but all the chivalry nonsense is just some fetish of his with no real value to anyone else.
I follow Dalrock’s logic re: courtly love/romance just fine, but what’s the point? What does proudly saying you are unchivalrous do if no one understands what is meant by this? It’s obscure. I agree with Jason, that no body cares about how a centuries old concept eventually grew into feminism. If you and your target audience have to be historians, you are not going to accomplish much. It is only fine if your target audience is historians.
Y’r friend and ‘umble narrator did that, over two years ago.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/courtly-love-the-origins-of-cuckchivalry/#comment-223896
It might be that Dalrock was greycycling some other manosphere type, who is the original plagiarist, and Dalrock simply doesn’t understand that the stuff he was copying originated someplace famous. Either way, I’ve never seen him cite his source, even when (laughably) he has paraphrased Campbell’s work, in a line-by-line fashion.
I found some of his insights in that thread fascinating, and I expected Dalrock to read the original source of his copypasta, and start giving proper credit. Sadly, I never saw him do this.*
I also agree with Jason. A tracing of motives is meaningful only when it leads to tactical insights in the now. Otherwise, one just constructs “a fable, generally agreed upon.”
Boxer (a mediocre historian, of the 19th c. American variety)
*If Dalrock ever did give proper credit to Campbell, please post a link to it.
Boxer,
Dalrock’s original position in 2011 was that chivalry had a noble core that was twisted by modern feminism. As you noted, in 2016 he shifted his view in response to C.S. Lewis “The Allegory of Love” (1936) to focus on “Courtly Love”. In doing so, he turned the correlative sequence of events from medieval chivalry/courtly love to modern feminism into a direct cause-and-effect casual chain.
Where did he copy the ideas of Campbell? My research indicates that the quote you believe paraphrased Campbell is in fact a quote from p. 41 of “The Allegory of Love”, which far predates Campbell’s work.
Derek
That whole article is an uncredited paraphrase of ch 12. in Campbell’s Transformation of Myth Through Time
There’s a little snippet. Do you see the concern?
Dalrock would surely make the case that he came up with all his insights independent of Campbell, that he’d never read or heard of Campbell, etc. The problem with that is that, much later, he paraphrased Campbell’s analysis of St. George and the dragon. As is his wont, he didn’t cite any sources there either.
If he were one of my students, I’d see him in private about this, and whether or not I believed such things were all just amazingly coincidental, I’d make him write a proper citation.
Yes, it’s possible Dalrock came up with all this shit on his own, because he’s a groundbreaking genius, and because he somehow never heard of a pop culture icon of the late 20th century. It’s possible, but it’s not probable, and paraphrasing stuff without credit is a mark of lazy and hubristic scholarship.
The original meaning of chivalry was a code of conduct amongst knights (if I remember correctly). It was basically not using their power to take advantage of the weak which would have included women. It was not a code of conduct to worship women.
But like it was pointed out earlier…why is it a big deal now? None of us are knights and you can pretty much point out any major modern institution to point out that worshiping women or promoting feminism is the norm.
No.
I went back and checked. As far as I can tell, everything substantial in ‘Dalrock “Courtly Love: The origins of cuckchivalry“‘ comes from quotes from Lewis and analysis directly and logically built upon those quotes. Lewis explicitly states that courtly love is about (non-marital) love(r) and not marriage. Moreover, Lewis mentions the troubadours in multiple places in “The Allegory of Love” and Dalrock quotes one of them.
The work of Lewis, published in 1936, predates Campbell, whose earliest work was published in 1943. It’s theoretically possible that Campbell built on the work of Lewis, but not the other way around.
I can’t speak authoritatively on Dalrock’s analysis of St. George and the dragon, as Dalrock discusses that in multiple posts and I didn’t reread all of those posts. I did a cursory search and didn’t find anything to support your claim. You may have concrete evidence of plagiarism, but I’m not seeing it as presented here or at the links shared here.
There’s no doubt that Dalrock is an extremely sharp tack. Personally, I believe Dalrock is extremely well read up on some great authors of the past, and he is applying those ideas to the present Socio/Sexual/Marriage Market Place. (SSMMP). I think his failure is not in how much he exaggerates in satirizing the problem, but rather in not spelling out a solution. But his readings won’t carry him that far without fresh revelation. My latest post covered this same thing.
https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/theyre-telling-us-what-courtship-is-not-and-not-what-courtship-is/
Dear Fellas:
I got an email and I invited the sender to comment here. Namely, I was (politely) accused of doing what I accuse Dalrock of doing, namely, of making him out to be a plagiarist because I don’t like him personally.
That is incorrect, and in fact, the opposite is true. When Dalrock posted his first article, I ran interference and cited Campbell in his comments, in an effort to keep any potential critics from derailing his discussion with such accusations. Not only did Dalrock never acknowledge this, but he kept using Campbell’s ideas for months, passing them off as his own insights, without ever giving credit to an earlier writer. When I saw him doing this, I always left a comment explaining that these ideas had an earlier source.
It’s thus impossible for Dalrock to claim ignorance on the matter. It’s also incredible to see him pretend that he is the (heretofore unknown) genius who has analyzed medieval french literature and come to these historical conclusions.
Derek writes:
Well, we’re not going to agree on this, and it doesn’t matter. Using already published ideas without citation is part of the definition of plagiarism.
Dalrock is attempting to talk about courtly love as distinct from traditional matrimonial love. Well, that has already been done…
“The problem from the troubadour point of view is that King Mark and Isolde, who are to be married, are not really qualified for love. They have never even seen each other. The true marriage is the marriage that springs from the recognition of identity in the other, and the physical union is simply the sacrament in which that is confirmed. It doesn’t start the other way around, with the physical interest that then becomes spiritualized. It starts from the spiritual impact of love — Amor.” (Joseph Campbell)
I am open to the fact that Dalrock was originally plagiarizing from earlier manosphere writers. I found one handily.
https://gynocentrism.com/2013/10/06/joseph-campbell-on-chivalry/
Unlike Dalrock, this guy didn’t attempt to take credit for someone else’s scholarship.
But, lots of people do this crap, right?
https://v5k2c2.androsphere.net/2018/08/04/plagiarism-and-you/
As I admitted in that article, I did the same thing until I was called out (at the end of freakin’ grad school.) Sure, lots of people recycle the ideas of others. The fact that lots of people are lazy hacks, doesn’t immunize him from the charge of being a lazy hack.
Just, ya know, for context virelai is like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZbQQaMuatE One of the greatest hits of the 14th century, it is more or less a fantastic description of total infatuation and the ruination that follows. Courtly love killing whilst adding a dash of style to the proceedings.
.Alas, I am left begging For hope and relief;
For my joy is at its end Without your compassion.
But your sweet mastery Masters My heart so harshly,
Tormenting it And binding In unbearable love,
So that [my heart] desires nothing but to be in your power.
And still, your own heart renders it no relief.
And since my malady Healed Will never be
Without you, Sweet Enemy,
Who takes Delight in my torment
With clasped hands I beseech Your heart, that forgets me,
That it mercifully kill me For too long have I languished..