By Gith Yankee
If you haven’t seen the first Sicario film, I would highly recommend it as an entertaining, violent and powerful film about the intersection between the American and Mexican worlds. The topic is important as the culture and people of Mexico intensify their colonization of the United States, the Sicario films offer a glimpse into our near future. The first film was directed by the excellent Denis Villeneuve. This follow-up features an Italian action film director named Stefano Sollima. It is written by an actor named Taylor Sheridan and produced by Basil Iwanyk. A film is a collective effort and the background of the principals matters. People didn’t pay attention to the ethnicity of Hollywood writers and producers from the 1930s to today which is what allowed hostile ethnics to cunningly undermine Western values by promoting anti-family narratives right under the noses of the average movie goer.
Sicario 2 is largely a white production with a white director and white writer. The producer’s ethnicity is unknown, but his wife is probably Jewish (Reisman) so he likely is also. This was the main way the Jewish lobby influenced American culture through Hollywood; Wealthy Jewish producers controlled the money and dictated the politics and casting of the films they funded. The most successful directors were largely white: Hitchcock, Coppola, Scorsese, et al, but Jewish ethnic interests controlled what pictures got made and marketed. In Sicario, we have to be careful. Is this movie pro-white or anti-white? Is it apolitical, simply violence for enjoyment, or is it a warning or even a celebration?
The movie opens with a chilling yet absolutely dazzling scene of an Islamic suicide bombing. Many mainstream reviewers have called the scene dishonest or anti-minority. A balanced view would be that the bombing depicted is probably quite close to the footage of the Ariana Grande concert in England. In Sicario 2, terrorists sneak into the US through the open Mexican border, then blow up a target with noticeably white women and child victims. That Muslim bombers haven’t come through our southern border is true. However, they certainly do evade national boundaries in the EU in order to carry out their bloody work. So, a fictional bombing, fictional yet incredibly realistic, opens the film.
The response of the US government is what one might hope we would do (but never have) - move to close the border with Mexico and specifically target the coyotes smuggling people and drugs across it. The coyotes are controlled by the drug cartels and the strategy is, rather than fight the cartels directly, to get them to fight each other with the idea that the US will come in and clean up after a civil war. This plan backfires mightily as the cartels have heavily infiltrated the Mexican police force, Mexican military and the American police and military as well.
I’m glad the film is ambiguous. Didacticism never holds up well and it is up to the viewers to choose their own interpretation. The movie could be interpreted as anti-American in that the CIA uses torture and murder to further its political agenda without sacrificing troops. This seems to be an accurate condemnation of how our government operates internationally. Also, the Hispanic characters operate with efficiency, brutality, intelligence and agency. To a liberal, these are negative characteristics, but for most people they are not demeaning but frightening.
The very real dangers of an open border are strongly depicted and the cultural dysphoria of a town like McAllen, Texas are clearly shown. This is a movie that resists the obvious anti-white, globalist propaganda of Jurassic Park or Star Wars and deserves to be seen by a thoughtful audience.