Judaism has its dual morality; Islam has its Taqqiya. Christianity, on the other hand, is distinguished by the belief that Christ is truth, and that knowing the truth is necessary for salvation. Christians, therefore, are theologically enjoined to seek the truth, and it is not difficult to see that this preoccupation with the pursuit of truth is one of the bases for the high-trust society that used to permeate what was formally called Christendom. Therefore, it is with a certain degree of sadness (but unfortunately no surprise) to witness the type of dissembling, deceit, and disingenuousness exhibited in the nominally Christian magazine First Things in its recent attack against Sam Francis , one of the foremost theorists of race realism.
In an article entitled “The Outsider ” in the October issue of First Things, author Matthew Rose, a senior fellow at the Berkeley Institute, pursues the unusual epideictic rhetorical style in which he agrees with almost all of Francis’ points but disagrees with his conclusions. This style of argumentation is extremely deceptive because it concentrates overwhelmingly on the opponent’s positives and allows the writer to engage in ad hominem attacks while surrounding himself in a veil of objectivity. By a curious coincidence, just before beginning to write this article I was listening to a Jim Goad podcast in which he remarked that many of his “fans” engage in the same style of rhetoric: “Oh, Mr. Goad, you’re one of my favorite writers, but, of course, I disagree with everything you say and you are a racist, sexist, Nazi, homophobe, fill-in-the-blank, etc., etc.”
One senses in Rose’s article a certain unease, a sense that Francis is right but that Rose is just unable to bear the logical consequences of the truth that Francis has revealed. It is interesting that in this very lengthy article, Rose never systematically refutes Francis. All he does is say that Francis is wrong. Rose never offers any proof beyond risible assertions that racial differences in IQ are “unproven” or that scientific explanations of race are of “dubious intellectual merit.” It’s one thing to say that someone else is wrong; it’s an entirely different thing to provide evidence to support a claim of such.
Rose’s dishonesty extends even to his description of Francis’ book Leviathan and Its Enemies. While acknowledging that it is Francis’ magnum opus, Rose describes it as “repetitive, disorganized, and eight hundred punishing pages.” Of course, what Rose fails to mention is that the reason it was not published during its author’s lifetime was due to the fact that it was unfinished. Again, Rose only praises in order to provide cover for a subjective and non-factual rebuttal.
I’ve noticed a similar rhetorical approach in many of the organs of the controlled opposition, such as National Review, Chronicles, Reason, and The American Conservative. It is a combination of George Will prissiness (that cannot abide unclubable conservatism, let alone the Dissident Right); Oxford Union debate-style fatuousness (in which the phrase “My opponent is speaking like a Cambridge man” is considered to be a “zinger”); Rick Warren-style pseudo-Christian, New Age blather; and neocon/neoliberal/New Left aversion to anything having to do with biology or statistics. Indeed, when Rose is forced to admit that Francis has statistical evidence on his side, he tries to deflect against this by saying that Francis’ message is “buried under a mountain of policy data.”
I would like to designate the rhetorical style of the controlled opposition (or Conservative Inc.) as High Cuck (or, if you prefer, cucque haute or hoch Kuck). It is a rhetoric of failure, of exhaustion, of the inability to refute with facts. It is much more than just damning with faint praise; it is an acknowledgement that one’s opponent is correct but that one has neither the intellectual honesty nor the intestinal fortitude to make this acknowledgement public.
High Cuck is a rhetoric of deception and deflection. “Yes, Sam Francis is right, but Leviathan and Its Enemies is really long. Forget about it; just watch Sean Hannity.” High Cuck wants to appear highbrow, but it makes its appeal to the lowest common denominator. “Sure, Sam Francis can back all of his assertions with statistics, but statistics are based on math, and math is really hard. Besides, the only important statistic is that black unemployment is the lowest it has ever been. Put on your MAGA hat and cheer for the God Emperor because he’s going to outlaw illegal immigration, increase legal immigration, and all of those natural conservatives from Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador will vote Republican for all eternity.”
It is not a coincidence that in the last two weeks there have been two journals of the controlled opposition which have published articles denouncing the Dissident Right. First, there was Paul Gottfried’s lamentable article in Chronicles , and this week we have the attack on Sam Francis in First Things. The First Things article is quite curious, because why should the Left and its controlled opposition bring attention to a political theorist and historian who has been dead for almost fifteen years, and who almost no one is aware of outside of Dissident Right circles? The answer is, quite simply, that our ideas are gaining traction and can no longer be ignored. In the coming months, I expect to see more and more articles written in the High Cuck style. It is going to be a wonderful sight as George Will takes to the vapors, and the editors of National Review and Reason find they must make repair continually to their Victorian fainting couches.
Know the truth (of Sam Francis), and the truth shall make you free.