/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

lots of evil white supremacists in the feral cities bro

maybe, it's the entire national government the real problem

and not only in uk

>>13642133

33.

>>13642146

>it's the kike controlled governments

What you're looking at is idolatry and the curse that goes with it. People pray to the cloth idols they hang up on poles, and drape over their coffins when they die for the cloth idol. The Offspring Of Satan couldn't use the government against your people if your people weren't worshiping it. In the end, the promises of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 for people's worshiping state gods are ALL coming to pass right before your very eyes.

>>13642126

incoming

>>13642181

>I'm not gifting my land to anyone

Your fellow countrymen do, as long as they continue to feed the government idol

>I'm not funding them either

You pay taxes to the state idol, so in fact you do. Even if it's just sales tax, you personally do fund them.

>The land will be reclaimed by the people.

Until your people abandon all human government, what you see around you now is your lot.

>remove the jews from power

Until your people are all anarchists and have abandoned all versions of human government, you'll never be free of the jew's shackles. Your countrymen will continue to pay taxes feeding the jews, your countrymen will continue to become the jew's cops enforcing the jew's will. The mud colored invaders have been chosen by the jew, and your replacement by them is empowered by the state idol your fathers have worshiped.

>>13642126

>british cities are at risk of becoming feral

lol

the ferality spectrum

from the guy getting quoted by the article in OP

>For me, I think a really key thing is an idea that actually emerged about twenty years ago in American strategic thinking; and it’s the idea of the feral city.

>A feral city was an idea coined by an American strategic analyst which was published initially in in the Naval War College Review. It refers to a city that is essentially ungoverned yet in a range of ways has certain characteristics, including things like crumbling infrastructure, government bankruptcy, no-go zones, zones of negotiated police control (for example, the burgeoning of private security) … a whole range of facts — increasing, very prevalent corruption, and the like.

>So, the argument was, at the time, that armed forces needed to be prepared in order to operate in these feral cities. That feral cities were going to be generators of insecurity in the international system, and so the big armies of the world —or the interventionist armies of the world, like that of the United States, Britain and a handful of its allies —should be aware of the development of this type of city at this point in human history.

>At the time the article was written, the author’s best example of a feral city was Mogadishu, Somalia, for completely obvious reasons. If you look at that paper now, and papers subsequently written developing the idea from the perspective of 2025, you will have to concede that a feral city is a fair description of a number of cities in the West, including several in the U.K. All of those things I’ve just mentioned — government corruption, no-go zones and negotiated police control — when you look at a range of Western cities now, including several in the U.K., they are on the ferality spectrum.

>>At the time the article was written, the author’s best example of a feral city was Mogadishu, Somalia, for completely obvious reasons.

>when you look at a range of Western cities now, including several in the U.K., they are on the ferality spectrum.

import niggers

get nigger cities

surprised pikachu face

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/03/26/interview-with-prof-david-betz-on-coming-societal-collapse-and-civil-war/

>>13642239

these glowniggers in school sound more and more retarded the more they talk….

take this part

>Another thing to add to this is the urban studies literature. The urban studies literature, for well over a generation now, has been warning of the intrinsic instability of the urban condition going back to the late 1960s and early 1970s;

>saying, look:

>the mega-city,

>the very large cities that have arisen in human history relatively recently (i.e., within the last century and a half) are actually intrinsically unstable.

>They’re all, when you think about it, an astonishing balancing act. That they hold together at all —one could go on about these problems.

>But in basic terms, consider that the most basic definition of a city is of essentially

>a community which is unable to generate (with its own resources, in its own territory) enough to feed itself.

>And there are reasons why we concentrate people in this way. I needn’t go into the very obvious part. Basically, it’s about wealth generation and industry, so we concentrate in that way. But when you concentrate in that way, you have to have city support systems. The most basic one is food stuffs; but in a modern environment, you have to power them. You have to move goods in and out.

>In other words, cities have a life support system in the form of infrastructure which is located outside of the cities.

>Now imagine a scenario where the current levels of polarization and factionalization in Britain have increased, which they seem bound to do. Let’s say they’ve doubled or tripled.

>The perception arises — it doesn’t need to be a mass perception, it only needs a relatively small number of people who truly believe this — to attack the infrastructure.

>This is my point. To get to the gist of it: that is the most logical strategy. And the one most talked about in the anti-status quo circles

>is one in which the infrastructure of the city is attacked with a view to causing the cities to collapse on their own.

wtf is he doing there?

is he trying to feed attack plans to the angry public?

or are the military cucks really making up their own disaster scenarios to then plan around counter-attacks? basically playing theatre against themselves, while the world around them moves on its own direction, like being delusional in their own fears.

or is it something even dumber, like pre-feeding a false flage attack, which will be carried out by the same military and government once they lose their shit to the people they are trying to completely control?

is the uk government and uk military planning as last resort to starve all the bigger cities?

wtf

>>13642239

This is all so tiring, and boring, how can glowniggers manage to be always so uninspired and soulless?

>The second point is about the numbers of people required to do this; and here I would suggest to go back to your point about The Troubles.

>by the 1980s, The Troubles was essentially the world’s most professional terrorist force: which was in, terms of its technical capabilities, its organization, and so on, an organization which was capable of undertaking strategic terrorism throughout the whole of mainland Britain, including very large-scale attacks at the heart of the political and financial system. They were able literally to mortar-bomb 10 Downing Street and blow up good chunks of the financial district: two of the most heavily guarded places on Earth.

>So, as a thought experiment, ask yourself:

>if a fraction of the population of Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s was able to sustain such an organization for a period of thirty (well, it continues today, but essentially The Troubles are generally agreed to be about thirty years)

>what could the English population do if it was equally animated by the idea that it was being displaced? Or even just partially animated?

>You’re talking then of a population of 50 million people.

>In other words, the potential muscle is there,

>the grievances are there and increasing,

>the tactics are well understood,

>the tools are broadly available because they’re essentially dual use or civilian technologies,

>and the numbers of people required is actually quite small.

Has anyone of these glownigger cuckdemics ever asked themselves "why" ?

Why would the native people of a nation ever want to cause harm to their own people by infrastructure disruption?

Infrastructure disruption and city collapse is interesting as tactic only if you are doing that to a population which isn't your own, and if said other population is hostile to your own.

The so often cited troubles didn't attack their own population, so why are these cucks expecting the british people to collapse their british cities?

The enemy of the british, and of all other europeans are only two, the uncivilized invaders, and the (((traitors)))

Infrastructure disruption goes to harm more the native populations than those two enemies, which as long as the enemies are a minority they will be less affected

The invaders being a minority depends by locality and region,

in some areas where the invaders are a majority that's where infrastructure disruption could be effective, but then what? The invaders are just going to move elsewhere, the problem isn't going to be resolved that way.

The traitors will always be a tiny minority.

Infrastructure disruption isn't effective in removing the two enemies, but it can at best be effective in slowing down the traitorous zog controlled governments.

So all this talk about infrastructure disruption, shows only one thing,

the UK government is worried only about protecting itself.

A self-absorbed government is already in itself an admission of treachery

Because a self-serving government isn't going to serve the people of the nation

That's the root of the problem, but a corrupted government can't uncorrupt itself,

so you uk gov fags can only wait for the inevitable to happen,

if you were smart you would not oppose resistance and would make the whole process quickier,

but you aren't intelligent, you only talk a lot

>>13642140

Aww did someone pee in your cheerios this morning sweety.

>>13642126

REMOVE KEBAB

Since the anglo-glowniggers like to make predictions and paint the worst case scenarios.

I'm going to make a prediction too.

1) the Uk government is doomed to collapse

(for many reasons I'm not going to list, the main one being that the UK government can't exist without native british people, the pro-migration policies are an act of state suicide)

2) once the UK government system collapses, all the migrants will no longer be protected and cuddled by the UK system, they will be alone to fend for themselves

3) once the migrants are no longer protected, there will be a great meatgrinder where all or most of the migrants will be violently removed from the land, either by removal by death or removal by forced deportation

(for many reasons again, the main one being that even the most timid and servile britons are better equipped to fight on their homeland and take it back than the migrants are to defend themselves on a land they don't know,

but even without the homeland advantage the native britons would still win against some random bunch of multicolored non-europeans)

Once this outcome is accepted, the current UK government has only 3 options, in my opinion:

1) the meatgrinder, slow mode

continue to oppose the inevitable, continue to oppose the native britons who want their land back, continue to criminalize the outburst of popular rage coming after the crimes of the migrants

the meatgrinder will be very violent and it'll last quite some time, and all the people involved in the government will also go in the meatgrinder regardless of skincolor

2) the meatgrinder, fast mode

stop resisting the native britons, let nature run its course, stop criminalizing the britons outburst after excellent migrant crimes

the meatgrinder will be maybe a bit less violent, since there will be less violence involved in also crippling the hostile government, and overall the meatgrinder will be over faster

3) the safety deportations

the UK government must take all the migrants and move them all outside UK, ideally back to their nations of origin no questions asked, because if the migrants stay in UK they are walking mincemeat, they are already dead if they stay

the meatgrinder would be avoided, the UK government would likely still crumble because of the strain of the past decades of mass migration, but all the "precious migrants" would have saved their lives, you anglo gov cucks could still claim some sort of moral victory, to have sacrificed yourselves to save many lives without harming anyone in the process

>>13642189