HERE is a brilliant essay,”The Underground Men,” by the artful blogger Cwny at Cambria Will Not Yield. It’s worth quoting in its entirety: 

                                                       The Underground Men

The most striking aspect of the Western world today is the absence of white Christian males. Where are they? They have gone underground, because Christian masculinity has been proscribed as illegal.

In olden times, the white Christian male was seen as an essential part of the social structure. He was the spiritual head of his family, loving his wife as Christ loved His church, and the guiding light of his young children. Certainly it is easy to go back through history and find many examples of the failure of the Christian patriarchal system, but you have to be a modern, satanic Christian not to concede that if Christianity is to be taken seriously then the patriarchal family is the main unit of society. But of course Christianity is not the faith of modern man, so the Christian patriarchal system has been jettisoned. What has taken its place?

The technocratic white man currently rules the Western world. But his is a curious rule; he rules a kingdom of unruly barbarians and Amazon warriors by making sacrificial offerings to the barbarians and strategic appeasements to the Amazons. He would rather deal with those two legions of Satan than face Christian men, because his reign of technology and money is directly opposed to Christ’s reign of charity. If that reign of charity were to be reinstated, the technocrats’ reign would end. And it is the Christian male who traditionally has sallied forth to defend and build His reign of charity.

The technocrat is strategically right, although certainly not morally right: he must favor the barbarians and the Amazons because they are like unto him, as he is like unto Satan. We can understand so much if we keep that central fact before us. The technocrat needs a satanic society if he is to rule.

The white technocrat hopes to keep the barbarians at bay by sacrificing a certain percent of what he hopes will be ‘inconsequential’ whites. Of course the risk he takes is that he might become a sacrificial victim himself, but still, the risk is small. He is much more worried about the Christian male, which is why he yawns in the face of the torture-murders of whites such as Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom but sends government troops at the first sign of a white protest of the torture murders.

Now the Amazon poses a different problem for the white technocratic male. He can go his entire life and keep the barbarian at bay by offering other whites up for sacrifice and keeping within the confines of his gated community. But he needs (unless he is of the other persuasion) to bring a female into his orbit. At some level of his being he might prefer a Christian woman, but in the cold light of reason he knows he must wed the Amazon, because the Christian woman would expect him to be, horror of horrors, a Christian male. And he proceeds to deal with the Amazon as Satan dealt with Eve. He poses as the Amazon’s liberator by presenting to her as rights those things which God forbade her for her own protection. The Amazon is allowed to abort, to fight in the military, and to compete in the workplace. She is allowed to be male in all things, providing she stays a biological female. But since even the technocratic male and the Amazonian female have souls, both are inwardly restless.

The Amazonian feminist who has denounced femininity claims she doesn’t want to be seen as simply a body, but of course that is the only thing of interest she has left. The technocratic male has to pretend that he is really impressed with the mind of the Amazon, but he is not. The female mind can only function properly when it is connected to a female soul, and when she denounces her soul in the attempt to be masculine she becomes the very thing she claims to detest – a brainless bimbo. One need only look at all of the pretty plastic female newscasters who pollute the airwaves. They try to look so serious and talk like men, but does any male really take them seriously for any other reason than the fact they are biologically female?

The de-feminized, de-Christianized female is the most dangerous creature on the face of the earth. She has all the power that comes with femininity but lacks any of the moral restraints that Christianity gave to her. Lady Macbeth is rightly regarded as a monster when she asks the spirits of darkness to “unsex me here” and later gives the faltering Macbeth an impromptu pep talk that makes one’s blood run cold:

I have given suck, and know
How tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me;
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums
And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.

But when virtually every woman is a Lady Macbeth, can they still be called monsters? No, not by the men in charge of the society that has spawned the legions of Lady Macbeths. But the Christian underground man can say what she is – a fiend from hell. And who would be married to hell? The technocrat of course. And he pays a prize for his hellish union. The modern Lady Macbeths are fond of saying that a man wants only one thing of them, and that is true of the modern technocrat. Of course he only wants one thing; what else can she offer? But the modern Lady Macbeth wants only one thing from the male as well. She wants him to act aggressively in behalf of her illicit whims. In the case of Lady Macbeth, it meant that her husband had to kill Duncan; in the case of our contemporary, spiritually unsexed females, it means that the white technocrat must aggressively fight for her whims in the technocratic world of bulls, bears, and computers.

The female of the species will never know what it is like to be loved enough to be put in the female’s proper place, the Christian hearth, and the technocratic male will never know what it feels like to have “one whispering silken gown,” across his life. And that is a tragedy. But the technocratic male and the de-feminized female chose their fates. Far more tragic is the fate of the victims (the children who are murdered in the womb or who are spiritually neutered at birth), the ‘collateral’ damage, if you will, of the satanic utopia of the Bill Gates and Nancy Pelosies.

There is a group of white men who are still allowed to graze in the pastures of the upper world. They are to be found leaning over their backyard fences talking about the upcoming hunting season or about next Sunday’s football game. If you want to alienate these white grazers, just bring up some topics like the Mexican invasion, the black war against whites, or George Bush’s plan to eradicate all national boundaries. They’ll run back into their house, turn the TV on, grab a beer from the fridge, and tell their wife that the guy next door is some kind of nut.

As long as the grazers are allowed to shoot off their guns a few times a year and watch the gladiators on TV, they are content. But they don’t realize that they are the ones being fattened up as sacrificial victims for the barbarians of color. If you try to warn the grazers, they will simply burp.

And the sons and the daughters of the grazers are easily siphoned off. The daughters who have the ability are allowed to enter the world of the technocratic males, and the ones who do not are permitted to mate with the barbarians in order to escape the odium of being wedded to a white man with connections to the older, white civilizations.

The sons of the grazers usually cannot become technocrats, because there is very little room at the top of the food chain. The sons are permitted to fight for the technocrats, however. Aggressive, masculine, even warlike behavior is countenanced by the technocrats if the aggressive masculine action is done in defense of the ruling technocratic oligarchy. The Iraq war is a case in point. “Support our troops!” cry the technocrats. Of course they should support the troops: the troops are fighting for them.

Before we come to the underground men, let us pause to acknowledge a few saints. They are the Christian women. Because they are female, they are not, as the Christian men are, banished to the underworld. They are allowed to stay loyal to the crucified white males, but why should they? They have nothing to gain by remaining faithful, at least nothing in the worldly sense. They are a dying breed. If you are an underground man, and you find such a woman, cherish her.

And now we come to the men who were and are the subjects of these wars. It is easy to deprecate the white Christian, underground male of today if we compare him to men like Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest, but the battlefield is different today, and the enemy is much more formidable than it was in the days of Lee and Forrest. The Christian warrior of today has much more of an internal war than did the Christian warrior of old. If not completely equal, can we not at least say that the heroism of the modern underground Christian man, in his fight to keep his soul unpolluted by the satanic forces surrounding him, is close to the heroism of such men as Lee and Forrest? I think it is. I have known such men. They stand with Cyrano and tell the world that they have held “One thing without stain, Unspotted from the world, in spite of doom, Mine own! My white plume…”

The technocrat might hold the world in his hands, while the white Christian men are banished to the underground. But when the great Cavalier makes his final charge, He will look for the men with the white plumes. And we will be ready to ride with our King in the great and final conflict.

                                                                                                                                              — Comments —

John E. writes:

Very interesting essay. But it has me asking myself whether the author would consider me a technocrat, or an underground Christian man.

Charles writes:

Thank you for posting the link to CWNY. 

He writes in an earlier article of his titled Till the End of Time: 

The liberal is beyond reason; he is as blind with hatred and fear of the Christ as the demon-possessed swine in the Gospel. 

I cannot think of a better summation of the struggle between leftists and Christian-Traditionalists than this one. This fear and hatred, of course, manifests itself many ways, but is always directed at the Christian and anyone else who loves freedom and traditionalism. And this will be the focus of the struggle and the behavior of the leftist until the end of time as we know it.

Jesse Powell writes:

Quoting CWNY: “If not completely equal, can we not at least say that the heroism of the modern underground Christian man, in his fight to keep his soul unpolluted by the satanic forces surrounding him, is close to the heroism of such men as Lee and Forrest?” 

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with the characterization of Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest as being “heroes.” They did fight on the side of the South during the American Civil War, meaning they fought in favor of slavery. I don’t see how people who killed others for the purpose of continuing to enslave their fellow human beings can be lauded as “heroes.”

Clem writes:

Thanks for the great post by CWNY. In my opinion, he is one of the best traditionalist Christian writers out there. His current post is spot on too. Too bad your reader Jesse Powell doesn’t understand what makes these men heroes. Ignorance is a terrible thing. If Jesse had ever bothered to truly study these men and read about their lives he would understand exactly what makes them heroes and men among men. To Jesse, the South and these men are totally defined by ‘slavery’. I would imagine Jesse garners his knowledge from TV and public education. I so tire of the myopic ‘slavery’ as if it is and was a monolithic issue and totally what defines the South. As if the South would have never gone to war were it not for slavery. These very same people who rail at the idea of stereotyping have no problem whatsoever doing it themselves. This issue has been beat to death. However one wonders if Jesse ever questions how slaves were captured and sold. Who brought them in to the U.S.? Why were they here at all? Did blacks own slaves? Where there white slaves? Were there slaves in the north? What were conditions like in the north before and after the war? What does Jesse know about Liberia? Has the resulted aftermath been a good thing? Are places like Detroit, New Orleans, E. St. Louis, Watts, Anacostia et. al good place to be and live? How about Haiti, Zimbabwe etc.? Are blacks the beacon of liberty and freedom? What is Africa like? Generally speaking, are blacks altruistic non-racial people? The list is a mile long but in my experience people that treat slavery as a single issue feel all they have you do is throw out slavery and the thinking stops.

Jesse Powell writes:

In the above essay, CWNY uses the terms “Amazons” and “barbarians” a lot. “Amazons” seems to refer to (presumably white) feminist women and “barbarians” quite clearly refers to people of non-white races. Quoting from the essay above CWNY writes: “The technocratic white man currently rules the Western world. But his is a curious rule; he rules a kingdom of unruly barbarians and Amazon warriors . . .” and “But they (the “white grazers”) don’t realize that they are the ones being fattened up as sacrificial victims for the barbarians of color.” Certainly, characterizing non-white people as being “barbarians” is insulting and derogatory. 

Now as to the issue of the Civil War and slavery, I am aware that other issues were involved in the American Civil War other than slavery, most particularly using import tariffs to fund the Federal government, import tariffs that acted as a disproportionate tax on Southerners and acted as a support to Northern industry, at the expense of the South. Still, at the time of the Civil War, the South had slavery and the North didn’t, and slaves were a very important part of the production of the export goods that the South relied upon. Though other factors motivated the South in addition to slavery, the maintenance of slavery was a part of what the Confederacy was fighting for. The cause of the Confederacy is tainted by the evil of slavery regardless of the fact that other issues were involved. 

I am curious, those who wish to promote Lee and Forrest as heroes, do they wish that the South had won the Civil War? 

As for the deeds of Nathan Bedford Forrest, it says in his Wikipedia entry: “He served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a secret vigilante organization which launched a reign of terrorism against blacks and Republicans during Reconstruction in the South.” 

And: 

“He was accused of war crimes at the Battle of Fort Pillow for allowing forces under his command to conduct a massacre upon hundreds of black Union Army and white Southern Unionists prisoners.”

Laura writes:

The cause of the Confederacy is tainted by its efforts to secede and its provocations against the North. Slavery was an immoral institution, but it could have come to an end, and the Union preserved, without a massively destructive war. However, I do not wish to get into a full-blown discussion of the cause of the Civil War. Slavery is over and no one here wants to see it return or regrets its end.

As for Forrest, is he a worthy hero? It seems not. From the little I know of Forrest, I agree with Jesse on that point.

CWNY’s use of the term ‘barbarian’ is no more offensive than his use of the term ‘Amazon.’ Obviously it is an exaggeration to call all modern women Amazons. But there are many women who fit the term and, judging from the crime and illegitimacy statistics, there are many blacks who engage in barbaric behavior.

John P. writes:

Great essay by CWNY. I just wish the author had referred to “white Christian MEN” instead of “males.” A quibble, I know, but I’m really developing a bee in my bonnet about the failure to use the term “men.”

Jesse also writes:

I’ve read up a bit on CWNY, to see more what he is like outside of the above essay, and he seems to be very obsessed with race, very obsessed with how great the white race is and how bad and inferior all the other races are. My orientation is not towards race, it is towards the well-being of the family and the great harms feminism does to the culture. I think the obsession about race, particularly the idea that the white race is better than all the others, is a harmful diversion, adding something negative to a cause; the cause of patriarchy; that should not be associated with the self-indulgent and arrogant sin of racism. Isn’t it the feminists who try to claim that racism and patriarchy go together? That “discrimination” against women and discrimination against blacks is morally the same thing? Why accept the premise of the feminists by associating patriarchy with “white pride” yourselves?

Laura writes:

Now you may not be obsessed with race (I’m not obsessed with it either) and that is admirable as race is not worthy of an obsession. It should not be the cause of fanaticism. But if you consider race non-existent or completely unimportant than you are suffering from obliviousness because most of the world, including most non-whites, consider race to be one aspect of identity and many non-whites refer to their race – and the race of whites – as an important factor in society. Racism, which I define as hatred of other races, is indeed wrong, but anti-white racism is as wrong as any other form of racism, and attributing all the evils of the world to whites and assigning ongoing moral responsibility to whites for the sins of any whites in the past is racist. CWNY is speaking out against anti-white racism. And, while it is sinful to hate other races, it is not sinful to love and feel pride in the accomplishments of one’s own race.  

You raise an interesting question and that is whether the issue of patriarchy is related to the issue of race. I believe it is. Only white men have been called upon to view themselves as racially tainted, as guilty because of their congenital race. This has placed them in a position of moral inferiority and makes it impossible for them to assert themselves as leaders.

You admit that feminists often refer to the racism of whites to justify women’s liberation. You are right and they do this to undermine the moral legitimacy of white men and therefore justify their own power. 

Clem writes:

“As for the deeds of Nathan Bedford Forrest, it says in his Wikipedia entry: “He served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a secret vigilante organization which launched a reign of terrorism against blacks and Republicans during Reconstruction in the South.” 

Wikipedia? I will defer to this not turning into a Civil War discussion so I will leave it alone but seriously if Wikipedia is Jesse’s source he needs to do some real research. 

Washington, Henry, Jefferson, Madison and many others were slaveholders I assume Jesse thinks we should disdain these fine men as well and in fact the overwhelming majority of our founding ancestors. In fact if that is his criteria we need to rebuke and chastise almost everything up till about 1965 and of course we are still way short of the mark even today according to most non-whites, the multiculturalists and Marxists. 

And what is his point anyway? What we have now is Black Panthers, the Black Caucus, Affirmative Action, multitudes of anti white laws, literally hundreds of race based political and lobbying groups, rampant violent black crime in every city in America, unwed mothers of more than 70%, the ‘education gap’ that no matter how much money is thrown at it and how many decades we throw it persist, African American Studies at every college in the nation which is obviously race-based but also teaches white hatred, black societies and associations in the thousands and the list goes on. While Jesse calls CWNY obsessed with race I think he needs to open his eyes as to whom is obsessed with race. CWNY understands what is being done. You can pretend that race is a non-issue and even if it truly is to you, ignore it at your own and your family’s peril. Race is being used as a battering ram to destroy our culture, families, race and nation. As long as whites run away from it they will continue to be manipulated and steamrolled with it. Just as they are in Europe, Australia and Canada. 

“Why accept the premise of the feminists by associating patriarchy with “white pride” yourselves” 

And why let that manipulate you? In fact maybe research the connection to ‘civil rights,’ Marxism and feminism.

Please follow and like us: