The problem with Garland's civil war concept is that he assumes the country will divide up by states like they did 160 years ago. Except for a few states where the blue/red proportions are lopsided, it's going to be mostly an urban vs. rural conflict. This can take place in just about every state. The fighting, initially at least, would be so chaotic that no "front lines" would exist. I would expect partisans on both sides to be attacking logistical infrastructure. What better way to defeat a blue metro area than to cut off their food, water, and electricity. Strategic assets like power plants, ports, and military bases will need to be grabbed quickly or risk losing them. It would be a chaotic conflict.
The American Civil War was a bit unusual as these things go, where (mostly) the US split into two countries who then proceeded to have a more usual war.
A few takes on the sort of fragmented mess a second ACW could look like:
Great review. I never intended to pay to see the movie and this solidifies that choice. I really don't need more propaganda about the brave black woman triumphing over the "evil" rural white man, thanks. I may watch it at home if it ever comes to a free streaming service, my subwoofer is good enough to make it sufficiently entertaining.
As for the movie, haven't seen it. However, secession is not a violent act unto itself. The former Soviet Union broke apart far more peacefully than what happened in North America circa 1775-1783 and then 1860-1865. Both of these wars were the result of international bankers. There are numerous contemporary examples of secession resulting in peaceful co-existence. It is the most important principle found in our Declaration of Independence (Which remains a secession document). Read Ludwig von Mises' take on secession. It remains one of the most concise arguments for the right of self-determination. We are being manipulated by the international bankers towards our own destruction. Don't take the bait. When the imported armies of foreigners that have been allowed to pour across our borders like sheep attack, it will be the perfect opportunity for the central government to close the courts and to declare martial law throughout these united States. The power of tyranny will be loosened upon those of us who would have the government return to its 1787 constitutional limits. In every Defense Appropriation Act since 2012, the central government has been authorized to retain anyone declared or accused of the nebulous crime of being a "domestic terrorist." (In violation of the Et Parte Milligan and Ex Parte Merryman) How do you think they have kept the J6 people for so long without trial? Secession, done properly could peaceably resolve most of our problems. It does not go unnoticed that Hollywierd has made no movie about a peaceful break up of States that no longer share the long-lost concept of federalism. In a place that claims to value "diversity" as one of its most sacred principles, its amazes me how people cannot leave each other alone.
The government-wide application of Herbert Marcuse's doctrine of repressive tolerance is unfolding before us with the DOJ acting as enforcer. If only we could come together and reason as men per the word of God. But demons are running this thing for a little while longer. They lose, of course, but we just need to remind ourselves of the real enemy and the God who is our champion.
Unfortunately, you might be correct. Our history (American) informs us that you are at least playing the odds. But I will advocate for a peaceful, lawful (aka constitutional) secession movement just like my ancestors did My God requires it. However, like my ancestors, I am prepared to defend myself and my people if needs be. God bless you.
Texas turning Blue at some point is conceivable. Texas was governed by Democrats when I lived there in the late 80s. Rural Texans were plenty conservative, but Texas was also the home of Ann Richards, Jim Hightower and Whole Foods Market.
I think I've seen more cowboy hats and open carry in Virginia than Texas. (But I was in Dallas. The state varies.)
I can hear the creepy weirdo Wired writer hyperventilating just from the brief excerpt you shared. Gross.
This movie sounds like an interesting curio but if anyone thought before its release it would be anything but left-coded, then they’re not going to make it. Why do so many, Charlie Brown-like, keep thinking that THIS TIME Hollywood is going to be BASED and not yank the football away?
Joking aside, given that I have written several articles about the potential for a US civil war, I felt it behooved me as a responsible Substacker to see the movie and comment on it. I normally do avoid supporting, e.g. Disney.
This obviously doesn't apply to people commenting and more importantly critiquing their stuff from our point of view. We all KNEW it was going to be enemy propaganda. But it also reveals something about enemy head space so some of us need to watch and then disseminate to the rest of us. Come on now.
Not at all! Liars reveal all sorts of things about themselves was they lie, for example. A soft-pitch propaganda piece indicates where they think the line is and what they think is either moderate or persuasive.
The president has far more in common with Gaddafi than Trump. The entire premise of the movie is that the hypothetical civil war people fear would look like the War on Terror, but inside America. How does everyone keep missing this?
This is tough to hear. Alex Garland was one of my favorite novelists in the '90s (The Beach, The Tesseract) and he showed promise as a screenwriter (28 Days Later, Sunshine) but his last few film projects are so pozzed to me that I think I've given up hoping he'll make anything I want to enjoy again.
I am glad to Hear that Mater can enjoy the Movies Again! ❤️️🥰️
& yes, My Bros, who did watch the movie in North America & relayed it to me... have the same verdict as you, Pater (concerning the Movie's hidden messages & undertones):
It's Liberals (in the Francis Fukuyama 'end of history' mode) pontificating about Liberalism's triumph against the 'fascist tyranny' represented by the DOOM-ed president in said film.
In 1965 when Rhodesia claimed independence (UDI) there were 220,000 Europeans and 2,500,000 Africans.(Demographics is Destiny) It was clear from then that there would be no support from Britain. (Britain was working to end White rule as it dismantled the Empire to hand the reigns to the GAE) The communist terrorists were backed by China (ZANLA) and USSR (ZIPRA) The Rhodesians were never defeated in battle but victims of the NWO as we all are.
Democracy in Africa is one man, one vote - once ! (Mugabe - 1980 to 2017)
Before anyone could win a Civil War, he would first have to win control of his own mind, his own vocabulary. Just think what "Red" and "Blue" actually mean.
Before the US Military went trans- and female-, "Red" referred to the enemy forces in war games, fighting the Good Guys, us, the "Blues". The reason for that choice of colors was historically obvious -- the communist anthem "The Scarlet Banner", the Soviet Union's Red Army, communist Red China.
Then not so long ago, some journalists tried to obscure the obvious Far-Left tendencies of Swamp Democrats by giving them the Good Guys color of blue and making those supposedly Far-Right Swamp Republicans (I know! I know!) the red Bad Guys.
Journalists can do what they want, but why have so many free-thinking people on the Right obediently gone along with the journalists' reversal of the historical norm? A lot of people are less independent-thinking than they would like to admit. The Swamp Democrats have earned the RED color; make them wear it.
The colors are historically congruous. The US federal government has been a left wing regime for at least one century, arguably several. To try and make it a right wing government would be a revolutionary effort.
I figured it would be something about like this. I'll probably check it out, but there are no good theaters within 250 miles of where I am so I'll wait for it to hit the internets (which is not to say there are no theaters, only that they all suck).
The problem with Garland's civil war concept is that he assumes the country will divide up by states like they did 160 years ago. Except for a few states where the blue/red proportions are lopsided, it's going to be mostly an urban vs. rural conflict. This can take place in just about every state. The fighting, initially at least, would be so chaotic that no "front lines" would exist. I would expect partisans on both sides to be attacking logistical infrastructure. What better way to defeat a blue metro area than to cut off their food, water, and electricity. Strategic assets like power plants, ports, and military bases will need to be grabbed quickly or risk losing them. It would be a chaotic conflict.
The American Civil War was a bit unusual as these things go, where (mostly) the US split into two countries who then proceeded to have a more usual war.
A few takes on the sort of fragmented mess a second ACW could look like:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/10/what-a-new-u-s-civil-war-might-look-like/
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/21/political-violence-2024-magazine-00093028
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-the-us-headed-for-another-civil-war/
Does my heart good to see your Mrs. is doing so well after the problems you relayed. May you both be blessed with long life and God's love.
Seconded. Me and the missus send a heartfelt “huzzah!”
Great review. I never intended to pay to see the movie and this solidifies that choice. I really don't need more propaganda about the brave black woman triumphing over the "evil" rural white man, thanks. I may watch it at home if it ever comes to a free streaming service, my subwoofer is good enough to make it sufficiently entertaining.
As for the movie, haven't seen it. However, secession is not a violent act unto itself. The former Soviet Union broke apart far more peacefully than what happened in North America circa 1775-1783 and then 1860-1865. Both of these wars were the result of international bankers. There are numerous contemporary examples of secession resulting in peaceful co-existence. It is the most important principle found in our Declaration of Independence (Which remains a secession document). Read Ludwig von Mises' take on secession. It remains one of the most concise arguments for the right of self-determination. We are being manipulated by the international bankers towards our own destruction. Don't take the bait. When the imported armies of foreigners that have been allowed to pour across our borders like sheep attack, it will be the perfect opportunity for the central government to close the courts and to declare martial law throughout these united States. The power of tyranny will be loosened upon those of us who would have the government return to its 1787 constitutional limits. In every Defense Appropriation Act since 2012, the central government has been authorized to retain anyone declared or accused of the nebulous crime of being a "domestic terrorist." (In violation of the Et Parte Milligan and Ex Parte Merryman) How do you think they have kept the J6 people for so long without trial? Secession, done properly could peaceably resolve most of our problems. It does not go unnoticed that Hollywierd has made no movie about a peaceful break up of States that no longer share the long-lost concept of federalism. In a place that claims to value "diversity" as one of its most sacred principles, its amazes me how people cannot leave each other alone.
The government-wide application of Herbert Marcuse's doctrine of repressive tolerance is unfolding before us with the DOJ acting as enforcer. If only we could come together and reason as men per the word of God. But demons are running this thing for a little while longer. They lose, of course, but we just need to remind ourselves of the real enemy and the God who is our champion.
I agree with you that secession doesn't have to be violent... but at this stage I do not think peaceable secession is possible.
Unfortunately, you might be correct. Our history (American) informs us that you are at least playing the odds. But I will advocate for a peaceful, lawful (aka constitutional) secession movement just like my ancestors did My God requires it. However, like my ancestors, I am prepared to defend myself and my people if needs be. God bless you.
God bless, brother.
Texas turning Blue at some point is conceivable. Texas was governed by Democrats when I lived there in the late 80s. Rural Texans were plenty conservative, but Texas was also the home of Ann Richards, Jim Hightower and Whole Foods Market.
I think I've seen more cowboy hats and open carry in Virginia than Texas. (But I was in Dallas. The state varies.)
Making journalists the heroes is preposterous. Also, no way Blue states defeat Red states. That is also preposterous.
I can hear the creepy weirdo Wired writer hyperventilating just from the brief excerpt you shared. Gross.
This movie sounds like an interesting curio but if anyone thought before its release it would be anything but left-coded, then they’re not going to make it. Why do so many, Charlie Brown-like, keep thinking that THIS TIME Hollywood is going to be BASED and not yank the football away?
Charlie Brown at the Football is such an apt description of right-wing America.
Don't give money to people who hate you! In the words of a great philosopher -- come on, man!
I suffer so you don't have to
Joking aside, given that I have written several articles about the potential for a US civil war, I felt it behooved me as a responsible Substacker to see the movie and comment on it. I normally do avoid supporting, e.g. Disney.
I suppose. I just assume that anything that comes out of Hollywood is trash.
This obviously doesn't apply to people commenting and more importantly critiquing their stuff from our point of view. We all KNEW it was going to be enemy propaganda. But it also reveals something about enemy head space so some of us need to watch and then disseminate to the rest of us. Come on now.
If you know it's enemy propaganda, wouldn't ignoring it be the better option?
Know thy enemy.
Not at all! Liars reveal all sorts of things about themselves was they lie, for example. A soft-pitch propaganda piece indicates where they think the line is and what they think is either moderate or persuasive.
https://fatrabbitiron.substack.com/p/secede-poison
The president has far more in common with Gaddafi than Trump. The entire premise of the movie is that the hypothetical civil war people fear would look like the War on Terror, but inside America. How does everyone keep missing this?
Interesting idea!
This is tough to hear. Alex Garland was one of my favorite novelists in the '90s (The Beach, The Tesseract) and he showed promise as a screenwriter (28 Days Later, Sunshine) but his last few film projects are so pozzed to me that I think I've given up hoping he'll make anything I want to enjoy again.
28 Days Later is one of my all-time favorite movies. It's hard to avoid going woke in today's world and Garland is not as bad as some.
Excellent essay.
I am glad to Hear that Mater can enjoy the Movies Again! ❤️️🥰️
& yes, My Bros, who did watch the movie in North America & relayed it to me... have the same verdict as you, Pater (concerning the Movie's hidden messages & undertones):
It's Liberals (in the Francis Fukuyama 'end of history' mode) pontificating about Liberalism's triumph against the 'fascist tyranny' represented by the DOOM-ed president in said film.
So... hyperstitious programming?
Hyperstition needs to be discussed more
“Of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important.”
-Vladimir Lenin
In 1965 when Rhodesia claimed independence (UDI) there were 220,000 Europeans and 2,500,000 Africans.(Demographics is Destiny) It was clear from then that there would be no support from Britain. (Britain was working to end White rule as it dismantled the Empire to hand the reigns to the GAE) The communist terrorists were backed by China (ZANLA) and USSR (ZIPRA) The Rhodesians were never defeated in battle but victims of the NWO as we all are.
Democracy in Africa is one man, one vote - once ! (Mugabe - 1980 to 2017)
Before anyone could win a Civil War, he would first have to win control of his own mind, his own vocabulary. Just think what "Red" and "Blue" actually mean.
Before the US Military went trans- and female-, "Red" referred to the enemy forces in war games, fighting the Good Guys, us, the "Blues". The reason for that choice of colors was historically obvious -- the communist anthem "The Scarlet Banner", the Soviet Union's Red Army, communist Red China.
Then not so long ago, some journalists tried to obscure the obvious Far-Left tendencies of Swamp Democrats by giving them the Good Guys color of blue and making those supposedly Far-Right Swamp Republicans (I know! I know!) the red Bad Guys.
Journalists can do what they want, but why have so many free-thinking people on the Right obediently gone along with the journalists' reversal of the historical norm? A lot of people are less independent-thinking than they would like to admit. The Swamp Democrats have earned the RED color; make them wear it.
The colors are historically congruous. The US federal government has been a left wing regime for at least one century, arguably several. To try and make it a right wing government would be a revolutionary effort.
I've always been irked that we got assigned "Red" for the reasons you've stated.
I figured it would be something about like this. I'll probably check it out, but there are no good theaters within 250 miles of where I am so I'll wait for it to hit the internets (which is not to say there are no theaters, only that they all suck).