So, the idea that women's rights as they currently are stand in fundamental opposition to how a society can function long-term (look at current birth-rates, gender relations etc etc)
My question is this, how would a realistic scenario where women lose their current rights even be feasible. You could never do it democratically, it happening in a societal collapse situation comes with the fact society has literally collapsed.

And the cope about how islam will fix this issue is honesty getting harder and harder to believe as time goes on and even Islamic nations go through a westernization process.

>>509731108
>>509731053 (OP)

Not in our lifetime
Requires extinction-level events.

>>509731108
iran has 70% female college grads, islam shows that only national socialist germany got it right

>>509731108
>Islamic nations go through a westernization process.
Already happening.
Pakistani government voted to ban child marriage.
The people pushing it is feminist women.

I don't care about the moral of child marriage, it's only about the objective perception that the middle eastern countries are becoming secularized, modernized and (westernized)

>>509731053 (OP)
Why? Something wrong with your women?

>>509731283

>>509731053 (OP)
All you have to do is make them feel like having rights is disgusting and male oriented. Feminists will be against it and you tell them they're fighting the patriarchy

>>509731053 (OP)
>My question is this, how would a realistic scenario where women lose their current rights even be feasible
Restrict franchise/full first class citizenship to those able to serve in the military. Pass a full PT test to one single standard, pass a marksmanship test and maintain their own firearm, and possess basic survival knowledge. You'll naturally weed out 95% of women that way.
You don't get to vote on foreign policy then chicken out when its time to reap what you sow.
But yes, you cannot "vote them out" you have to challenge them to the game of violence which is what democracy was originally there to mitigate.

>>509731053 (OP)
You have to work, realistically over many years, even decades, to build a skill set that is rare and critical, identify allies (other men of our race who are like-minded), independently infiltrate positions of influence, and acquire the necessary financial wealth to start to buy property and control critical infrastructure.

This is the strategy that I have decided to take. It requires immense mental resilience to overcome the sense of futility and loneliness such a vision requires, as the risk of being compromised compels me to delay family formation and live alone, quite possibly until my forties.

Incel thread

>>509731684
Thats a good idea in practice, but we have a track record of governments around the world not taking too fondly of large groups of men (especially if they're all white) trying to band together on a large piece of land

>>509731934
The land ownership is a form of insurance and independence. I don't suggest that large groups of Whites form overt colonies precisely for the reason you've suggested. Instead, what we need to re-learn is solidarity in more fluid circumstances, and support other Whites (and only other Whites), professionally, physically and socially according to our means. This is what non-White groups do already.

Start small and identify a few suitable people where you live. Befriend them. To be sure of their commitment to our cause will likely take several months. You need to build an offline, word-of-mouth network and have each member pursue these goals independently, as a centralised movement is too easy to infiltrate.