Chris Wood

Why modern buildings look plain and samey, and what it has to do with the political right always losing. (Watch the first minute of OP video first.)

@beardedcakeman @_GenerationWhy_ @avidseries What did I say about controlling speech?

@gracefool @_GenerationWhy_ @avidseries Guy who identifies with game of thrones free speech quote very invested in molding everyone into the same shape for maximum social cohesion

"I wasn't sure what to do."

The fundamental problem is not inequality, it's giving things to people who don't appreciate it. That's what welfare does, and most charity - at the same time that administrators take a huge cut. We need to replace the welfare system with laws that ensure gleaning.

@magattew The fundamental problem is giving things to people who don't appreciate them. That's what welfare does, and most charity - at the same time as administrators take a huge cut. We need to replace the welfare system with laws to ensure gleaning.

I used to be borderline communist. I lost 90% of my friends when I stopped believing what they told me about why Africa is poor. And what I found underneath their "compassion" was something uglier than I expected:

@washington89556 @_GenerationWhy_ @avidseries "Wanting to have sex with men is not feminine" 🤡

@gracefool @_GenerationWhy_ @avidseries Categorically illogical. Nothing about homosexuality says you also are feminine. You guys are inconsistent with your logic once more

@fawazalbahar @eMTBrides That has been tried many times, few women are interested in going somewhere without men. That's the real tell. Feminist sexuality is all about power games. The revealing clothing is deliberate but they lie to themselves about it constantly.

@eMTBrides That's why I say a gym specifically for men and a gym specifically for women is the best option.

When She Catches You Staring at the Gym (w/ Nikki Howard, Kim Senser, Rio Sage, Giana Carli, Marcel Logan, Tony Gaeta, Justin Sherman) via Stevie Emerson I'm waiting to see the satire.. That's why I have a home gym now. 🏋🏼‍♂️

@SpeckMartyn @giveashitnature Don't forget the unmeasurable cost of being dependent on global supply chains.

@giveashitnature For the price of seed + the price of the crop that was not grown in the rows of wildflowers. Interesting idea, but it's not free. There's not enough information here to evaluate it.

Farmers have figured out that the cheapest pesticide is a strip of flowers. When you plant wildflowers through a crop field, not just around the edge but in strips running through the middle, you get ladybugs, lacewings, hoverflies, and parasitic wasps living in the field instead of visiting it. They eat the aphids, the caterpillars, and the mites for free, all summer long. In controlled trials, fields with tailored flower strips had leaf-beetle numbers 40 to 50% lower and crop damage cut by around 60%, enough to drop below the threshold where spraying was even considered worth it. The flowers attract a standing army to our fields. We spent decades engineering chemicals to kill the insects eating the crop, when the insects that eat those insects would have worked for the price of seed.

@_GenerationWhy_ @avidseries Embracing your sex is good for society, homosexuality is the opposite.

@avidseries It's ironic that these types of people have the exact temperament of those that disowned their children for being gay a couple generations ago.

🚩Astonishing. Must watch. Yesterday Laws dismantled Seymour in an interview, and the Act leader completely threw his toys out of the cot. Laws asks Seymour why he didn’t bother reading the Indian FTA before agreeing to support it, an agreement which re-affirms Paris obligations - but also - UNDRIP, which spawned co-governance and has been weaponised by the left & the judiciary. Seymour’s response? “ It was too big to read so I did my due diligence by asking McClay - there’s no naughty bits in there right?” David it took me seconds to use Grok to find those clauses, hell you could even use CNTRL + FIND on word to find it. His excuse is laughable and non serious. He then infers “yeah it’s bad but it’s done now, don’t worry about it” yeah nah David, this is EXACTLY how bad legislation and nasty fish hooks like Treaty Principles got into legislation (which NZF are now finally with great difficulty able to review and remove). The whole “yeah we put this in there but it doesn’t mean anything” argument by lazy or duplicitous politicians has caused extensive damage to this country, What is TRULY amazing is how Seymour readily throws his constituents on the garbage heap, and then gets bitchy at Laws for bringing up “I’m not going to talk to you again” he pathetically snaps. He even channels Chloe by asking Laws to ‘Zoom’ out. Winston Peters, and important figures to Act : Don Brash, Elizabeth Rata, Gary Judd QC all have spoken out how reckless and dangerous these clauses are. These are iconic Act supporters. Seymour has shat on them, and Act voters. Seymour says “They are being pedantic” and dismissed their concerns. This is a senior Politician elected on a platform to stop this garbage saying “shut up and don’t worry about it” If you are an Act voter, you should be enraged, and looking elsewhere to park your vote.

@Mick_O_B @2ETEKA Says who?

@2ETEKA Simon O'Connors two besties.

🚩 BREAKING : ACT’s Brooke Van Veldon launches Digital ID campaign. Comes after Van Veldon made changes to broaden even further self sex ID birth Certs so men can be registered as ‘mother’. ACT truly is the party for gimps. Brooke van Velden says the Govt is making it easier for businesses to verify the identity of their staff and customers by simplifying the process to be approved for the RealMe Identity Verification Service. “Many businesses, including financial service providers and educational institutes, are required to verify the identity of their customers. The RealMe service allows people to do this through a simple digital login, rather than providing their passport or driver licence details which must then be manually verified,” says Ms Van Robot. “This simplified identification process can provide significant cost and time savings for people who need to identity themselves for a service, as well as helping the organisaitons to meet their compliance obligations, including anti-money laundering requirements.” MyMahi, a tertiary education provider, received access to RealMe last year. Matt Webb, MyMahi Partnership Director, said at the time “working together can shorten the process from over a month to ten minutes. This innovation can be life changing for students and their whānau.” “More than 1.5 million New Zealanders have verified RealMe identities which can be used to open a bank account, renew a passport, and access core Government services such as the Inland Revenue Department. It’s pleasing to see the private sector offer this service to the public too. The change is being made through the Internal Affairs Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill that will be introduced to Parliament later this year. This is the latest step for ACT to move towards mass surveillance- including digital currency. ACT the party for small government 🥴🥴 realme.govt.nz.

@LeighLiberte @EerykMcRae Wellington is nothing, try Lower Hutt. PaknSave customers are 98% Asian during the day.

@EerykMcRae You should see Wellington now...

People outside of Auckland have a much harder time understanding just how bad mass immigration is. This is why.

I get it, it's fun to dunk on women and their remarkable ability to be wrong about literally everything somehow But I guarantee if you'd asked men, they would've also predicted that testosterone makes you an evil asshole Everyone has all these ideas about what testosterone is, what it does etc. For the most part, they're completely made up Testosterone got labeled "the masculinity hormone," and then society spent decades broadly attacking the concept of masculinity Testosterone got caught up in this bizarre culture war, and now no normal person has any idea what it actually does It's just the "boner rape muscles crime hormone" in everyone's head. Totally retarded

Great post except most of what most know about first wave feminism is a myth. I recommend the work of @Rach4Patriarchy and @NancyRPearcey on this. The fact is it was about denying women choices from the start. The vast majority of women did not want the vote, but they were not allowed to vote on it (in a few US states they were allowed, and they voted overwhelmingly against). Likewise the situation re property, studying and divorce was complicated; in reality there are many exceptions proving women could have those things if they really wanted them, but the vast majority didn't. We are again told that women's own choices are proof of their oppression. The idea that women were denied access to work is also heavily propagandised. Before the corporate workforce, women were far more entrepreneurial. Running multiple businesses from home was totally normal. They created an entire parallel economy; the problem was it was difficult to tax. Industrialism displaced women by moving productivity from the home to the company, not patriarchy. Is "the right to control one's body" a euphemism for abortion? The fact that euphemisms are usually used is revealing. What has been the effect of this on the happiness of women? Have you seen the qualitative data on how women feel about it after? Or the correlative data on happiness going forward? Let alone the effect on society, or that more girls are aborted than boys.

Les femmes occidentales n'ont jamais été aussi diplômées, aussi indépendantes, aussi "libres". Et jamais aussi malheureuses. Ça a commencé en 1970, quand le féminisme a explosé. Coïncidence ? On n'a le droit de poser la question. Je vais la poser. Hier soir à San Francisco, dîner avec une amie, brillante, 38 ans, associée dans un fonds, deux appartements, pas d'enfant, pas de mari, pas de projet d'en avoir. Au troisième verre, elle me dit ceci, presque en chuchotant : "Je crois que je suis faite avoir." Faite avoir par quoi ? Par le récit qu'on lui a vendu à 20 ans. Que sa carrière la rendrait libre. Que le mariage était une cage. Que les enfants pouvaient attendre. Que l'indépendance financière valait toutes les tendresses. Elle a coché toutes les cases. Elle a gagné. Et à 38 ans, dans son salon avec vue sur la baie, elle réalise qu'elle a gagné une partie à laquelle elle n'avait jamais voulu jouer. Ce n'est plus le patriarcat qui brime les femmes en Occident. C'est le féminisme. Plus exactement : ce qu'il est devenu depuis cinquante ans. Reprenons calmement. Le féminisme de la première vague (Olympe de Gouges, Mary Wollstonecraft, les suffragettes) a obtenu des choses justes et nécessaires. Le droit de vote, le droit de propriété, le droit d'étudier, le droit de travailler, le droit de divorcer, le droit de disposer de son corps. Ces combats sont gagnés. Définitivement. Personne de sérieux ne propose d'y revenir, sauf dans les fantasmes paranoïaques de BlueSky. Mais une idéologie ne s'arrête jamais quand sa cause est gagnée. Elle a besoin de durer. Elle a besoin d'ennemis. Elle a besoin d'une caste qui en vit. Le féminisme contemporain, à partir des années 70, a fait ce que toute idéologie fait quand elle a épuisé ses légitimes objets : il s'est radicalisé pour survivre. Il a quitté le terrain du droit pour celui de l'anthropologie. Il n'a plus voulu l'égalité des droits, il a voulu l'identité des destins. Il a cessé de défendre les femmes pour entreprendre de les refaire. Et c'est là que le piège s'est refermé. Parce que pour refaire la femme, il fallait d'abord lui faire haïr ce qu'elle était. Le féminisme contemporain a vendu aux femmes un programme d'auto-mutilation présenté comme une émancipation. Tu veux des enfants tôt ? Tu trahis ta génération. Tu aimes ton mari ? Tu es aliénée. Tu trouves de la joie à t'occuper de ton foyer ? Tu es une collabo. Tu préfères travailler à temps partiel pour voir grandir tes gosses ? Tu sabotes la cause. Tu te sens plus accomplie en couple qu'en célibat ? Tu intériorises le patriarcat. Tout ce qui faisait l'épaisseur d'une vie de femme (le lien charnel à un homme, à des enfants, à un foyer, à une transmission) a été reclassé en aliénation. Tout ce qui faisait sa singularité biologique (la maternité, le cycle, le désir d'être protégée parfois, le goût de plaire) a été reclassé en construction patriarcale à déconstruire. Simone de Beauvoir l'a dit avec une franchise qu'on a oubliée : "On ne devrait pas autoriser les femmes à choisir de rester à la maison pour élever leurs enfants. Précisément parce que, si cette possibilité existe, trop de femmes la choisiront." Lisez bien. La fondatrice du féminisme moderne dit qu'il faut interdire aux femmes un choix, parce que sinon elles le feraient. Voilà ce qu'est devenu le féminisme. Une idéologie qui ne fait plus confiance aux femmes pour choisir. Qui décrète à l'avance ce qu'elles ont le droit de vouloir. Qui traite leurs désirs comme des symptômes à rééduquer. C'est exactement la structure du patriarcat qu'il prétend combattre, sauf que cette fois le maître a une carte de presse ou un poste à l'université. Regardez le résultat. Pas les slogans. Le résultat empirique, mesurable, têtu. Les femmes occidentales n'ont jamais été aussi malheureuses. Les études sur le bonheur subjectif (Stevenson et Wolfers, l'étude du General Social Survey étalée sur quarante ans) montrent toutes la même chose : le bonheur déclaré des femmes occidentales s'est effondré depuis 1970. Plus elles ont obtenu ce qu'on leur a dit de vouloir, moins elles ont été heureuses. Les femmes consomment trois fois plus d'antidépresseurs que les hommes. Elles font face à une explosion de troubles anxieux, de burn-outs, de solitude affective, d'épuisement maternel quand elles deviennent mères tard, d'angoisse d'infertilité quand elles ont attendu trop. Le mur biologique à 35 ans est devenu une épidémie silencieuse. Les cliniques de fécondation in vitro de Paris, Londres, New York débordent de femmes qui ont fait ce qu'on leur avait dit de faire et qui découvrent à 37 ans que la biologie n'avait pas reçu le mémo. Pendant ce temps, les femmes mariées, croyantes, mères tôt (toutes les statistiques le montrent, regardez les enquêtes Pew, regardez les travaux de Bradford Wilcox) déclarent des niveaux de satisfaction nettement supérieurs à leurs sœurs urbaines célibataires diplômées. On nous a appris à voir ces femmes comme arriérées. Les chiffres disent qu'elles vont mieux. Beaucoup mieux. Mais ces chiffres-là, on ne les commente pas. Pourquoi ? Parce que le féminisme contemporain a un intérêt structurel à ce que les femmes soient malheureuses. C'est sa rente. Une femme épanouie dans son couple, ses enfants, son métier choisi librement, son rapport apaisé à sa féminité (ça, c'est une femme qui n'a plus besoin de l'industrie du grief). Plus besoin des conférences. Plus besoin des consultantes diversité. Plus besoin des éditorialistes spécialisées. Plus besoin des associations. Plus besoin des ministères dédiés. Toute une économie morale s'effondre si les femmes vont bien. Donc il faut qu'elles aillent mal. Et pour qu'elles aillent mal, il faut leur réexpliquer chaque matin qu'elles sont opprimées, même quand elles ne le ressentent pas, surtout quand elles ne le ressentent pas, puisque ne pas le ressentir est précisément la preuve qu'on l'est. Je le dis comme femme de trente-trois ans qui partage sa vie entre Paris et San Francisco, deux capitales où le féminisme contemporain règne sans partage. J'ai vu de mes yeux des femmes qui rêvaient secrètement d'avoir trois enfants à 28 ans et qui ont fait un MBA à 32 parce que c'était ça, la bonne réponse. Des femmes qui sortaient avec un homme bien, doux, solide, et qui l'ont quitté parce que leurs amies trouvaient ça "trop traditionnel". Des femmes qui ont gelé leurs ovocytes en pleurant dans leur Uber parce qu'elles n'avaient "pas le temps" maintenant, alors qu'elles ne demandaient qu'une chose : avoir le temps maintenant. Aucune de ces décisions n'a été imposée par un homme. Toutes ont été imposées par le climat idéologique fabriqué par d'autres femmes, militantes, journalistes, professeures, autrices, qui vivent du fait que les femmes ordinaires obéissent à leur script. Voilà le patriarcat réel de 2026. Il n'est pas masculin. Il est féminin et idéologique. Il ne porte pas de costume trois pièces. Il porte une tote bag "smash the patriarchy" et il décide à ta place ce que tu as le droit de désirer.

Because the industrial world has no place for femininity. Its value cannot be measured, thus we consider if worthless. The result is that industrialism carries with it the seed of its own destruction. We have to move the center of productivity from corporations back to households. Then women can get status from working from home again, and create the local communities we desperately need.

I’ve noticed that when I bring up the concept of humans and “duty”—to family, to community, to nature—men (generally) are like “yeah!” On the other hand, women (generally) get 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘺 defensive. Why is this?

@GirlsChase "Life - finds a way."

Jeff Goldblum is one of the few celebrities who cold approaches. There used to be a YouTube video of him day gaming in Hollywood. Even at the peak of his fame a lot of the girls he approached didn’t recognize him. Doesn’t stop him. He just games away anyway (and gets GIRLS!).

@franks_lawyer Only to make way for something far worse that this government is developing: a censorship regime tied to banning online anonymity, followed by digital currency.

What we saved New Zealand from by defeating the ‘hate speech’ campaign of Jacinda and the woke Wellington lawyers.

@Strumbling @GovLepetomane69 @Rothmus It's a measurable fact, and none of the colonial countries actually want to undo it like Zimbabwe mostly did.

@gracefool @GovLepetomane69 @Rothmus “We made your life better” - Every plunderer in history

UK primary schools are teaching 7-year-olds they’re born with “white privilege.” Indoctrinating infants with race guilt is pure child abuse dressed as “anti-racism.” Britain is lost.

@jerrymunashe24 @GovLepetomane69 @Rothmus I said not everything about it was good. And it was better in some places than others. But none of them want to go back to a world without some colonialist ownership, because that would mean returning to the stone age (in most places).

@gracefool @GovLepetomane69 @Rothmus Foreign powers forcefully disrupted indigenous governance, plundered natural and cultural resources, and imposed arbitrary borders that ignored ethnic realities, ultimately leaving a legacy of economic exploitation, cultural erasure, and political instability.

@jerrymunashe24 @GovLepetomane69 @Rothmus It improved overall conditions in each colony. It wasn't an unmitigated good, but it was an improvement, similar to now when poorer countries do the work that richer countries don't want to do - the trade still enriches both sides.

@gracefool @GovLepetomane69 @Rothmus How was colonisation good. Just wanna know

@acteduweininger You don't have a website or something that isn't filtered?

@gracefool Filtered

There are better ways to defend the interests of European New Zealanders than turning up outside a random National Party MP’s office—the day after NSN is banned(?) and kiwi remigration activists are raided by Police—to sperg on a megaphone with larp optics. You are not Hitler. You live in Libtard North Korea. Leftists are already circulating your cringe antics on social media to widen support for the already ongoing crackdown on nationalists in this country.