Civil Farce

I didn’t expect Civil War to be a good movie. I watched it because I wanted to see the full scene where the photographers found themselves somewhere in the South and were confronted by the guy from Breaking Bad about their species of American. To be honest, it’s the only part worth watching. It doesn’t disappoint too much, either. This is the best partial clip I could find:

I’ve never done anything illegal, and I’d never advocate for you to do anything illegal. However, please don’t spend money to see Civil War because it’s retarded. The villain in the clip is the Left’s wet dream of what we’d like to be doing, but there’s no explanation of who he’s fighting, or even why. That’s the premise of the entire movie.

Essentially, it’s white men fighting each other in various scenes for no discernible point, either in terms of ideology or why in a strategic sense, these would be suitable locations for pitched battle. There are a few blacks. For instance, the president is the guy from Parks and Recreation, but he’s executed by a black female commando after the shock troops of the “Western Alliance” fight their way into the Oval Office at the end. She also executes some black female agent who tries to negotiate safe passage for the president. The villain in the clip above is filling up a mass grave, but I only spotted one black body.

The alliance which takes DC consists of Texas and California (WTF?!!!). Of course, Charlottesville is mentioned, but as the frontline somehow while DC is about to fall. This is very shitlib thinking. Look at a map of this region, why not hold Staunton to the west out in the Valley in order dominate the juncture of Interstates 81 and 64?

In the context of modern warfare, the conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated that holding strategic points on favorable ground which has been fortified and manned with determined resistance can hold back a force with overwhelming firepower for years on end.

Why didn’t the federal forces make a stand at the Rockfish Gap Entrance for Shenandoah National Park at the top of Afton Mountain where 64 crosses down into the valley, providing the route over the mountains into the heart of Virginia, which would need to be held in order to launch an offensive on DC? The offensive of the Western Alliance would be coming from the west, right? Making a stand at Charlottesville would make no sense, while enfilade fire from the commanding heights of Afton Mountain could turn the stretch of 64 down in the valley into a highway of death.

Both the north/south corridors from 81 and 95 would have to be under control in order to invest this cursed capital. Or, maybe they’d just strike through West Virginia and Maryland using 270 as their connection for an operation to subdue the Beltway, thereby providing the federal forces with multiple venues for attacking the besiegers from behind in order to relieve DC? But still, why would Charlottesville so much further to the south be of any importance? If you try to do some armchair Erwin Rommel, the retardation of the plot is staggering.

This aside, America is only in a state of sporadic mayhem and blacks are participating in virtually none of this mayhem? Where are they? Hunkered down at home playing Scrabble? There are lot of blacks virtually everywhere in proximity of DC, not to mention inside the city itself. Did they all become Quakers and refuse to participate in the hostilities? When have they ever turned down an opportunity to loot a place to the bone (by “bone”, I mean books, sunblock, and greeting cards)?

Anyways, how does America break into a state of civil war along some sort of distinct geography? The fault lines in this country are all deliberately racial. Moreover, in terms of ZOG and global sodomy, none of its white servants have the courage of their convictions. Those who provide the military muscle are doing so ostensibly for Uncle Sam but there’s also the pension and the paycheck. In this movie, the dollar is basically worthless, only Canadian money counts.

Without the fake rationales and financial incentives, nobody is going to fight for any of the evils we rail against at this publication. Antifa is a bunch of drug addled lunatics who are paid and protected to attack peaceful demonstrators. They’re not going to fight against soldiers who can shoot them dead in a war over ideology. So, why would any white men be fighting each other in this scenario? Was DC softened up by volunteer Anal Assault Battalions, raised in San Francisco and Austin, before the commandos went in for the coup de grace?

How are fragile networks for just-in-time logistics functioning? It would be great to have a ample supply of booze and cigarettes like the Brazilian photographer does in the movie, but come on. The food part is where everything would come undone. Nobody’d be able to organize beyond raiding parties probably, and mostly on foot. How are these warring factions sustaining complex mechanical warfare on a military industrial base scattered all over America thanks to bribing congressmen? Is there even a single munition in the American arsenal manufactured entirely in one locale?

During the coming collapse, I’d love to be out there on the road stopping cosmopolitan assholes who think they can take photos and ask what kind of Americans they are, and just ask, of course… but I’m too cynical to have ever once considered this scenario. The mind of a libtard is something to behold, so I guess that’s what this movie has going for it.

3 comments

  1. Oy, we’ve learned that the goy can be fooled into believing any nonsense. Just look at Jehovah’s Witnesses. Do they strike you as dumber than others? No? But what they do have is plenty of printing presses.

  2. Nope, you didn’t get it.

    First, of course Garland didn’t map the movie to modern-day politics. If he had, and thus if stuff like the Texas/California alliance made sense on our political landscape, the whole movie would just have gotten bogged down in political issues and never would have delivered the point that he wanted to make.

    Next, what was that point? It’s an anti-war movie. The villain is the war itself. Thus, getting into the details of who’s the “good guy” and who’s the “bad guy” according to who and based on what policies they support is not just pointless, but counterproductive. It would be like having a scene in All Quiet On The Western Front where two characters have a discussion about the relative merits of German monarchy vs. English parliamentarianism. Who cares? That’s not what the film is about.

    Similarly, who cares about details like where the best place to put the front line would be or how a war like that would affect just-in-time supply chains? It’s not a documentary. It doesn’t matter that it’s not autistically realistic about how a real-life civil war would go. In making this movie, Garland is trying to prevent a second civil war, not do a strategic analysis of one.

    There’s a common phenomenon in which people review the movie they expected to see instead of the movie they actually got, and that is very obviously what’s happened here.

  3. Civil War 2.0 will not anything like 1861-1865. It would be closer to Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia in 1990’s, Spain 1936-1939, or the more recent Civil conflict in Syria.

Comments are closed.