The vehemence of tropical life, something that bothers me very much is not romantic. It bothered me very much in its verminoid expression. I mean, for example, if you leave tropical place and you leave window open and there are these small ants that come in during the day, they're tiny little ants, they don't bite but they manage to sniff out somehow. By the way, how is it? Is it a sense of smell? I don't know how, but leave the tiniest morsel of fruit or anything else, no matter how far away from the window and a few hours later there is a trail of these small ants and they're ineradicable. Not that I bother to do it, but it's very clear no matter what they do, they can't get rid of these things, they can use DDT or something, nothing works against them.

A few days ago I spent a night carousing with a free prostitute. You might ask what, but in the morning I get awakened by a shiboon cleaner and she bursts into my apartment and apparently she was knocking at the door, but I did not hear her because I had these earphones on and she bursts in with the same kind of insistence of these insect and from behind the door I was with a lady of ill repute and I was naked behind this door. By the way, you ask what is free, prostate. This is something itself that my enemies try to slander me. They say I'm into coke and whores and this as if it's something new. I've told you for years that the best place you could find me was on my belly, passed out in Panama whorehouse, but in fact I live a very clean way of life in general, you know,

I'm very sober, and I was taking a walk because of too much coffee, I love the taste, I can't stop drinking, that is true, but I have so much coffee, persistence, insomnia, and this woman who's not a great beauty, but not ugly, at a bar where people congregate outside and she accosts me on the street, I was in this insomnia haze from the coffee and she doesn't let go. What I mean by a free prostitute, this is one of those in-between cases where you're not quite sure if she's a prostitute or what. In some of these third world towns, especially if you are near a port, you go and anybody you choose, any of these congregations where people come in a crowd and somewhere up to Half of the girls will occasionally do hooker work of some kind on the side.

Maybe informal, they don't call themselves that, but in other words they're women, okay? Half the time they're prostitutes. In other words, that's any city if you look at it in the right way, but in the tropics it's more overt, it's more openly transactional, so you don't know if they're trying to screw you for a dinner or a drink or a place to stay if they commute, they come into town from let's say two hours outside, they want to spend the night with someone, they have no way to get back home in the middle of the night, so they come planning to find someone to screw and spend the night. And I find this very off-putting, you know, I would rather be with professional prostitutes than this. In the Mishima book, the Mishima book Forbidden Color, which I do not recommend you start

Mishima with, but he has this episode. I mean, look, this book Forbidden Color by Yukio Mishima is about the gay underworld of Tokyo in 1950, so excuse the unsavory example I'm about to give you. But it's a very revealing example because girls do this too, and these just scenes stick in my mind from the book. So the protagonist is about to, you know, he meets some gay tryst at some gay bar, and The guy, he has this small suitcase, what you call airplane type, airplane with toiletries and toothbrush and all this, so anticipating that he would go home with someone, you know, and would want to be prepared. And the protagonist just finds this utterly disgusting, reacts with total contempt, disgust at this.

So, again, sorry for example, I know his family show, Brennan is here in the room, he has his leash on, but this is what some of these girls are like in the third world, and I assume in America now too, I have not been for a while, but this kind of calculated, this planning, this kind of supposed pleasure, or something that would be otherwise spontaneous, it should be spontaneous, but they planned for it, it's very repulsive, you know. So I was with this demi-prost here, and the shibun cleaning woman with this long braided hair, she has a complete savage look, like the predator in the face, and she comes in and tells me, it's time for DDT, it's time for DDT, okay? So she says, we have to genocide the insectoids, the cockroaches, everything.

And I'm naked behind the door, okay, I'm not understanding half of what she's saying because I've just woken up and I'm poisoned from the cheap wine from the night before, but she insists, this is what got to me, and I tell her to get out, don't come in, I don't want to talk to you, and she says, oh I'm not coming in, I'm right at the door, I'm not coming, this is what these tropic countries are like, she's staying there just insistent like this and looks me up and down with hunger, this hunger for me I could see in the eye, a mix of the hunger and aggression, and she keeps blathering about DDT and this, and I suppose this disappointment of some tropical life in that the daily encounters you have with the life force here, it's not often magnificent or romantic, but instead

it's insistent and needful, it's annoying in this way. If you've ever also been with mosquitoes, for example, if you go to a shithole like Colombia River, not all of Colombia is a shithole, I had Cartagena, I don't know if you pronounce it that way, I'm not multicultural, but Cartagena, the old Spanish city by the sea on the Caribbean in North Colombia is very nice, but you go to some Amazonian river in Colombia or Peru and you can slather on however many layers of repellent you want, you still get stung and blend dry by a mosquito, you know, and I've lost at least two nights over the past months here with mosquitoes. They generally cannot get in to where I am in an apartment, but when one of them does,

again this tropical craftiness and insistence, they are very smart, okay, the mosquitoes here, they know how to hide. You have almost no chance of finding it once it gets in, because they know how to hide on low surfaces near the floor, on dark surfaces, right above the floor sometimes, so it's impossible to find them. If one gets in, you have sleepless night. And the people like this Chabon cleaner, they are the same, okay? This kind of desperation, this hunger, you want to talk black brunch? You've heard about black brunch in New York. I've had black brunch for many years in other words. So you see in Judork and Washington DC you have protesters, you've seen them this summer, but they were around before this summer. Some of them are dumb white kids who are in this religious mania.

You know the words you like to use about them, status signaling and this. But you also have the black shibun race interrupting people's brunch in New York. They get into restaurants, they get into people's face while they're eating in D.C., and nobody stops them, neither the owners nor police. I would love to fight one of those shrill baboons, but you know, it's mostly these fat black girls who are in cells, they're fem cells and this, and how much does American media have to tiptoe around also the brittle masculinity of black men who, you know, Tarik Nasheed, you know the poster, my brother Nasheed, he has that number. He talks about buck-breaking and this because they all get broken in when they go to jail or even before this down low thing.

They all get gay with each other in the black drug world, you know, so that stays with them for life and then they lash out in all these ways and homosexual Jewish television producer have to cover for them. So you know, but anyway that's all this shrill ideological stuff in the United States, but I've had to deal with the far more prevalent and equally annoying tropical version of it for some years now, where these kids from the slums, they just come to bother you while you eat in some of these tropical cities. If you sit outside especially, there is no protection, right? Some of these kids are five or six years old, so you can't do anything. You can't protect yourself because if you push them away, by the way, nothing works. You can be nice.

If you refuse to give them money, you're basically getting held up by a five or six-year-old and they throw stuff and you can't do anything because that's what they're trying to provoke you to do. They think they will have a big payday if you push them away or that they get sympathy from onlookers, so this is the opportunistic, annoying, hungry, tropical behavior you see in all the teeming life, insectoids, humanoids, same thing, in this teeming pile of bio-matter called the tropics, this annoying, persistent hunger of all life here. And in truth all cities around the world, the western world at least, are becoming shittier and worse now all the time they're approaching this, whether it's the homeless street shitting

in Austin or San Francisco or this, it has been going on much longer in the cities of South America, which actually had been nice just two or three decades before. But okay, so the other day I see mentally ill old woman shitting in the middle of the street in full light. You don't have the full experience of these countries until you see that, and this is in the nicest neighborhood, half a block from very nice restaurants and this, but this spreads throughout the West because leftist mayors will not enforce any laws that protect the taxpayer. The taxpayer is bottom of social hierarchy in Western technocracy now. So it's the leftist mayors shitting on your head. It's not that they don't have the capacity to enforce, it's they choose not to control

crime, not to control these phenomena, I just talked about the spreading of filth in these cities. They're shitting on your head and defenestrating you, right? Because taxpayer, worker, they get up in morning, they go to crap job with abusive employer, they get overworked and pay for everything in city, but their city become unwalkable piles of literal sewage. services, the sewage doesn't get clean, nothing is arranged for their comforts or their morals, everything is arranged to harass and demoralize them. And they take it. I don't know why, but this is why I had argument the other day with a Danish friend who does not want to understand that unlike in Scandinavia or especially Denmark where he is from, the

technocrat classes of the rest of the West, the mayors and this, they are not to be trusted with any policies, any money, because whatever they do, they do out of almost perverse delight in screwing over the burger, B-U-R-G-H-E-R, the Bourgeois, or should I call them the burger, yeah, you know, the burger, right, the burger eaters. And this will continue as long as they take it. I'm not advocating anything, by the way, this is not a political action show, this This is information and entertainment show, but I tell you until the American taxpayer organizes, and I don't mean us internet frauds, but the tens of millions of people who are just cheated out of a country, until they organize on a mass scale, their dispossession by this cartel and its demented technocrats will continue.

There's no button to it. They'll be turned, they'll put a ring through their nose. But this show is not, it's about something entirely different, it's about biology. It's about my own special daydreams in biology coming from a reflection on tropical life and is not on just human biodiversity or HBD, which is very popular with Steve Saylor and George Cochrane. You should all read even though Cochrane is crazy. But this show is on BD, biodiversity more generally, not HBD, and I was concerned by this problem of tropical life because on one hand you have the absolutely magical side of it you might see on television, Planet Earth show, and these certain creatures like the resplendent quetzal, certain felines, even alligator, other things like this, certain

beetle actually, very amazing, very otherworldly, and yet in another sense on the other side what you face daily is the constant onslaught in animal, in insectoid, human, even in disease form, and please don't get me started on rashes. I know some people get these in the tropics, fungi and such. It's too gross to think it, but it's really the same principle I say above. You feel the needfulness, the intrusiveness of life, of the teeming life in this needless, violent, persistent way. By the way, not me in the terms of this, I'm safe because besides you have to frequent bathing to prevent that, but you also have to take certain supplements. If you live in a tropic climate, bathing is not enough, you have to take certain supplements.

I tell you about one, again I told you before, but it's relevant to this show in multiple ways. Cat's Claw is called Cat's Claw. I say it's Uncaria tomentosa is the scientific name, and what is it? It's the inner bark of this Amazonian vine, right, and this vine, it grows in the Amazon of Peru a lot, it was found by a German explorer, he saw the Indians there drink it for all kinds of ailments, they make a decoction from it, and he cured his friend lung cancer three times a day. saying it will work for all this, but apparently fasting, plus taking this Amazonian vine the right way, it cured all kinds of things. And this vine is incredibly hardy, it's very ancient. It grows deep in the jungle. So you can understand why. It's been brutalized by this teeming life in this way that I say.

It's been assaulted, however, over eons, over who knows by how many microbes, insects, fungi, who knows what else. It's developed in very strong defenses against them, and these defenses are not a poison to humans, but they are strong defenses so that no one has really gotten to the bottom of what's in the 300 plus compound in this bark or how these compounds interact with each other in the body. But the amazing thing about this plant is about certain other that grow in similarly extreme conditions is that when you take it internally it has on your body a similar effect. It lowers stress, it lowers inflammation, it somehow knows what you need. If it's too much cortisol or if it's too little it solves the problem.

These are called adaptogens and the Arctic ones like Eleuthero or rhodiola are similar. But this one, cat claw, for obvious reasons, having persisted in Amazon for so long, it also has a very strong antimicrobial effect. And if you take regularly in the tropics, at the very least what I can say is you're mostly protected from all kinds of diseases and such. It protects you inside your body the same way it protects itself in the jungle. You no longer get, look this is gross, I had a friend in Amazon, he go to explore and he get these skin things, okay, so I don't want to get into it. But don't imagine that exploration life is all fun if you open certain cave you will die within two weeks because you open these tombs and there's a fungus inside that will

eat your lungs and you die within two weeks. So cat's claw can't save you from that. But from the usual assaults that tropical life puts on you, it can. You need cat's claw or oregano oil or something similar that you can take on a regular basis. You cannot do with antibiotics on a regular basis, they have side effects. And also, you know, microbes get a resistance to antibiotics, but they cannot get a resistance to something like cat's claw because of a large number of compounds in it. Anyway, but if you do take this, I advise caution, as it may have some side effects, so you study it first. In any case, this show, I was upset but also inspired by this contrast, I tell you, within tropical life. On one hand it's annoying and assaulting meatfulness, it's hunger, and on the other

hand the occasional magnificence of certain specimens, which is, this last point has always been my great concern and obsession. In other words, what leads to the production of great and resplendent specimens? To discuss some of this, I will then be right back. Yes, what are properties of tropical zones as opposed to temperate ones in terms of species They support both in number and kind. Is this a useful question to ask? How do species evolve differently in each? And this big question, this big debate in evolution theory, and I can only talk a bit on this segment, and I give you a word of warning. Biology in a grand scale, you should never let a scurrying, petit-fogging type like Dawkins or Levantine or other.

Lavontin by the way is basically a political officer, a Lissenkoist, similar to that. You can look what that means up of the Lissenko, but he's not a biological thinker. A lot of commentators on evolution, they play bait and switch within their talks where often they change the question that's supposed to be answered. So Lavontin is always concerned with one thing only, with proving a radical human equality And whatever he can say to manipulate a field of biology to that end, he will say. But if you take Darwin's view, for example, book named literally Origin of Species, and you ask where do species come from? What is a species? And questions that interested me specifically is what accounts for organisms adaptation to its environment? That should be fundamental question, right?

But if you lose sight of that question, it becomes easy for one of these types during a talk or even one of their papers to start squirting squid ink because often they try subtly, too subtly, maybe sometimes even they themselves don't realize, but they try to change the question to, for example, how does an adaptation spread in a population once it already exists? And similar talk in biology, which is never as precise as the hard sciences, it's easy to lose sight of main questions, especially when you do high order or abstract thinking about evolution and this without many particular examples. So I talk some of this in the book and I don't want to repeat here, but just again, what explains a correspondence between an organism and its environment?

This should be an interesting central question, and the second question of special interest to me, but one that biologists would never dare ask, in part because it's not their job, you know, but what explains the emergence of an organism that is magnificent versus one that is stunted? And yes, I know the objections here, that it may be hard to define this magnificence, But it's easy to see it, and for example it's not even necessarily about size because you can have small magnificent organisms. And of course some would say all are magnificent, all species are beautiful in their own way, which I think is actually true from intellectual point of view, they all hold intellectual interest, but not from another more primal and aesthetic point of view that affects you

on a bodily level more directly. There is certainly a pleasure and intellectual interest in even the most insignificant yeast or a bug. But on the other hand, if you look at something like, I say, this bird, the resplendent quetzal, which was worshipped as a god, or the power and majesty of the eagle, many people choose as their totem, the eagle, recognizing its divinity across human cultures and time with no contact with each other, and as far as I know no people has ever chosen cockroach. Now scarab and beetle, that's different. I have friends who are obsessed with beetle and taxonomies of beetle. That's different from cockroach. But no one has chosen cockroach or certain demonic spider or worm, as far as I know, to worship.

But then even if you say this isn't true and okay, all species are beautiful in their way, in a certain intellectualized point of view, but then nevertheless all can recognize that within the same species the magnificent or well-turned-out specimen is very different from the sick and deformed and the stunted, and that's an objective question. And then when it comes to question of speciation, I wonder if some species evolve out of magnificent and healthy specimens that they self-segregate and they move in that direction and whether other species diverge through the path of stuntedness and degeneration and what accounts for that term and how those species end up and so on. So these are questions that concern me. And the second one is not of any interest to pedestrian biologists.

I know this. The types of pedants who are concerned with what Schopenhauer calls their catalogues of monkeys, or what I would say instead, in today's language, the types who have their state commission to use whatever argument necessary to prove the egalitarian religion of this wretched regime of our time. And so these two questions I was thinking about the other day, after I hear from my online friend, his ad on Twitter is Pale Primat, he posts very good things often on biology and IQ studies and this, and he had this clip from Bret Weinstein on the tropical zones versus the temperate, on what accounts for the different types of species that emerge in these two zones. And I'll just play the clip for you, it's very short, about two minute clip. One moment, here.

Brennan, put the clip before I beat, I beat you, I beat you with stick, Brennan, put the clip. Why is there more competition in the tropics? Less seasonality, reliable resources. Does competition also increase between humans and hothouse conditions? If so, which? Wouldn't the above decrease competition? Not from our friend Echo. All right. So I'm gonna let you go for it while I try to find this article. Let's just say, so this was one of the primary topics in my dissertation. And the counterintuitive thing is that the temperate zones is that the temperate zones, which are less competitive, are more difficult to evolve in response to because of their capriciousness. So that is to say, the weather doesn't care about you, right? That means some days it smiles on you,

and some days it delivers you harsh challenges. And predicting them is difficult because it is not something that has an interest. your competitors have an interest whether it is getting to lunch before you do or poisoning you so that you disappear from the landscape or whatever but that force that they apply is consistent enough that you can adapt to it and so in some sense the argument that I deployed in my dissertation for why species are more numerous in the tropics and that is true at every scale is that in effect the competitors drive each other to ever greater competitive efficiency and that the cost of competitive efficiency is the narrowness of niche, which means that a species that was broadly distributed and had broad tolerances gets narrowly distributed and divided up in

order to be a more ferocious competitor. So it is a downstream consequence of conditions being more consistent over time and that leaving competition as the dominant hostile force rather than a flip-flop between competition on the one hand and climate on the other. Awesome. That was a super packed synopsis. It was pretty dense. Very dense. So yes, this part of bigger debate on speciation and on ecology of temperate and tropical zone, a very big topic in evolutionary biology and this, but the way it's being used, this particular clip, the way it's being used by HBD people to apply it directly to humans, I think is not so correct. They want, I think, to make claim that tropical adapted people are similar to so-called niche

specialists that you heard Bret Weinstein talk about, and therefore they are good at certain very limited things, but that cold weather adapted humans, whether of Northeast Asia or European variety, that they are able to adapt to a wider range of conditions because of this idea of inconstancy of the weather, and that this adaptation to the inconstancy of weather is a bigger brain and higher intelligence. First of all, because intelligence is the versatile adaptor, right? If you're not very narrowly specialized to a small niche and so forth, you need intelligence. It's a big brain that helps you adapt to a variety of environments. And it allows organisms to adapt to most varied circumstances, whatever, maybe.

And the second reason is because the inconstancy of weather means you have to plan forward for the winter and so on. So this itself promotes evolution of intelligence, again, supposedly. And one such person cites, in the thread of Pale Primate, some studies that show cold weather berms, for example, that they have bigger brains than tropical ones. I'm not sure if it's true, but I think if it is true, maybe it's a misapplication to humans. Not that I do not believe hot weather peoples are dumber by the way, which they are, not Not just tropical, but all very hot weather peoples. Aristotle says the same, you know, look what he says about what causes intelligence and so forth, and that some of the explanation that I just said for why this could be true, why hot weather people are dumber.

But I have, as you may guess, my own interest in similar subject to what Weinstein talks about in that clip. I don't think it's applicable, though, to humans in ways I just said. I just made the case for you roughly what the HPD people think. But more important, I'm not so sure Weinstein is right to begin with. I don't think Weinstein is right in that clip, okay? I think he's wrong. And I will have a drink of champagne and I will be right back and say, why? No champagne for me, not yet, I decide not. You cannot drink while you record. This is true. If you ever try to record a talk or this, never have not even one drink before, it will make you sound very slow, turgid. You need to go in opposite direction.

Have amphetamines if you can, which I do not have. I wish I did. So I was thinking about The other day I want to tell you why Weinstein is not so right in the clip I played for him before. And I cannot speak to his thesis or full writings, I never read them, so I'm just going by the cliff notes he gives in that clip. So first of all, what question is he trying to answer? And I think he moves in between two, at least, but maybe even four questions. But if he's trying to answer, for example, why are there more species in tropical zones, I don't see what the talk about competition adds. And the simple explanation is that hot weather, sunlight, precipitation, these are conditions that are conducive to life. It makes life easier, it proliferates more easily, there are less restrictions, and so

the reason for there being more species in tropical zones, these reasons are abiotic, so called. In other words, based on temperature, sun, not biological. And the competition he speaks of actually presupposes this wealth already of species, of bio-matter. And again, it's not known in places like this really why there are so many species. If it's a so-called museum effect of old ones that stay and don't die off, or of new ones that are able to proliferate fast and not get extinct, but you can also make some claims that it is in the nature of life itself to differentiate into types and species if these favorable abiotic conditions are there, again of temperature, humidity and so on. Now a way to think about this that simpler than what Weinstein says is this analogy Nietzsche

gives this once, it's about human societies, okay, so I know that there are problems with that with transferring from human society to nature, but he talks about how in early republics which are always surrounded by great dangers and actually literally by competition for survival against internal and external enemies, although Nietzsche does not use this lame word competition, but you take early republic, it's faced with many such dangers to survive the early republic, therefore has to enforce a very homogenous type, not just in terms of body and training and this, but the psychological type, the character it requires of its men. It requires a certain uniformity, and you see this in early Roman republic especially,

but in Greek and Venetian and other cases also, and then he says when a point of decay comes when for whatever reason, and usually that reason is success, but the dangers are conquered or are felt to be conquered and the bonds and the restrictions of custom, the severity of a regiment that the republic was founded on. Why did it need these very severe bonds of custom? Because it had very powerful other republics or tribes on the outside that it had to maintain its independence against, or even empires, and because on the inside it had factions or individuals who would take over and destroy the republic. They would form a junta or a tyranny, and these had to be stopped. So to prevent both dangers, these dangers are ubiquitous and very frequent in life of republic.

And so to prevent this, they had to have very severe regiment, very severe custom, and enforce that uniformity of type, but then, when conditions are felt to be better, when the danger seems to have passed, when good times come, these bonds of custom are loosened, and this leads – he says this, Nietzsche says this – to a proliferation, a tropical proliferation of types. He says this. And these can now develop, as opposed to before, where you had uniformity, you have this, so So you get many bad types of specimens, but you also get monstrous specimens of various kinds, some of them magnificent. And he mentioned, for example, Alcibiades for Athens, Caesar for Rome, and Trump was no Caesar as we all know.

He was in character a cross between an American chad and a Jewish comedian, Catskill Jewish comedian of the Rodney Dangerfield type, which is why the freak out of the establishment of this grey human aphids who run America government establishment, the aphidoid humans, why they freak out over him is so bizarre, he's a Rodney Dangerfield type. But anyway, back to biology talk, why analogy that Nietzsche gave? Granted, it's about human culture and not merely biology as a science, so maybe not directly transferable, but why it not apply to explain also the great profusion and diversity of species and life in tropical place as opposed to temperate zone where actually the harshness of the winter specifically is analogous to what I said in the early republic.

It very much limits actually bio-matter in general and also what kinds of life can develop in the first place. It maybe makes them more uniform. Why not? Why does not analogy work? I remember in Argentina the old people today, they like to complain. Italians always, they complain about everything and you see in Buenos Aires it's an absurd complaint by Italians where they say the city is a war zone and unsafe and they don't know what that means. You can walk in Buenos Aires at night for two hours alone. You can walk with a lady, a companion. You will not get harassed. will happen to you as opposed to, again, a certain tropical city where this is impossible. But the Italians complain always, they see a news story and it becomes the city is a

war zone and you have to get into a restaurant, you have to press a button, so they unlock the door electronically, they're mentally ill. But so, yes, I am aware Italians like to complain, but these Italians, they complain that in their youth there was ice, and now there is no ice in the summers, the winter, the austral winter. There's no ice. And so they say that diseases proliferate now that did not spread before, because even an occasional icing just kills off entire classes of things in this, not just microbes, other things, parasites, worms, mosquitoes, many things, but also plant life. I don't need to give you an example of diseases. You know many plants. Cocoa tree does not even grow in South Florida. You need tropical life for the power of cocoa.

But what does the talk of competition add to the Weinstein clip I played? What is he trying to explain? He might say he's trying to explain, not this, in other words, not simply the profusion of species, although he leaves this very vague. Like I tell you, they never really want to say what question they're trying to answer, and they slither in between them. But he might say, okay, I'm not talking about the proliferation of species, but trying to show that tropical species are niche superstars, right? says this, that really because of that crowded profusion of life that they evolved to dominate a very specific ecological niche. And I suppose the case he makes for why competition from other species or other individuals in

your species, why that competition is more predictable than, for example, seasonal weather in the temperate zones, I suppose he makes this case or somebody else makes this case somewhere else. But I haven't heard it. I think that too it would be difficult to prove, difficult argument to make, why is competition from other species something quote unquote more constant than the seasonality of winter in a temperate zone. But okay, so leaving that behind, he or HPD people who refer to his arguments here, which are very important to them in how they understand evolution of temperate zone intelligence of certain species as, by the way, also I think they would say temperate zone mores, inborn ways of behavior of certain temperate zone types, not just intelligence.

But tropical versus temperate explains according to these people not just the number but specifically the kinds of species that evolve, whether they are niche superstars and therefore much narrower in their abilities, so to speak, than temperate zone species. But I think this is false, or at least very hard to prove, and you can see there are many examples. The most telling example is that it's actually very hard to predict which species will be invasive to where. It's hard. Which species are you? Ecologists have tremendous trouble predicting what species will be invaders or super invaders. So you take something like the brown tree snake. It's a tropical species. And in a new setting, when you take it out of its home range, it can expand and spread

so much and so fast that really it wrecks the new environment it's been introduced to. It changes it. for example, to Guam, the brown tree snake introduced to Guam, but it's interesting because Guam is also a tropical environment, and yet this snake, this snake is kept in very reasonable bounds in its own home range, but in this other tropical environment it's spread like this and it's very hard to tell why. And a similar case with other species, for example some toad, I forget which, but it It just outcompetes all Antibian life, but again it's one tropical species introduced again not into a temperate but into a different tropical zone. It's kept within bounds in its home range but it goes out of whack in a new environment

which, you know, according to Weinstein and these people that new environment is itself full of niche superstars that have supposedly mastered their ecological niche and are relatively will protect it from competition, so you'd think, right, it shouldn't be possible for these things to happen, but they do, and now these cases that I just mentioned cover tropical to tropical invasive species. I think it's actually especially destructive then to Weinstein claims, but you add temperate to tropical and vice versa and you see even more cases like this and therefore more confusion. I do not see Weinstein or the HPD argument about temperate versus tropical being correct here. I'm sure you can think of some yourself, but you take big cats, right? Big cats are a temperate zone animal.

So actually, if you introduce them to South America from North America, as happened historically, they outcompete and hunt the big flightless birds in the South American tropical zones, these temperate evolved big cats. So here you have a temperate zone animal that goes into the tropics and becomes a superstar of the tropical jungle outcompeting supposedly the niche superstars there and there are vice versa cases as well. So this is very hard to make a Weinstein case because also what is a niche? When you think about these cases, a niche is very context dependent. A niche is something dynamic actually that it changes from environment to environment so it turns out some niche specialist superstars do not do so well when introduced to similar

environments elsewhere while others just absolutely overwhelm all native life and they turn out to be not niche superstars but powerful generalists and how or why and which species do this or For that, when introduced to new environment, it's not really understood. It cannot be predicted with current knowledge, as this is a big current problem in ecology. And to this you can add other confusion implicit in the Weinstein clip, and again, please excuse me, I have no idea if he or other acolytes elaborate on this elsewhere. Maybe he addresses this, but the people quoting him and quoting the arguments of the type that he makes, which are very frequent in the HBD sphere, the people who want to transfer this kind of argument that he made in the clip to humans.

But there's this other confusion in his talk between physical space, geographic space so to speak, and then a more abstract something you could call maybe ecological space. So in terms of physical space, it's very obvious that in the tropics life is more crowded. You know, again, I say simply because the conditions of life there are present for life to proliferate, abiotic conditions, whereas in the north there is simply from point of view of life there is more empty space because the territory simply can't sustain it, right? It's very simple. But how does that change then the calculus of competition? I am not sure because what does it matter if you have, for example, only two trees or to forests and territory mostly empty, physically speaking, but from an ecological point of

view you have herds of bison or other animals that feed on this scarce forest or trees and then the predators that feed on them, but you can see that even if there is less life material overall, nevertheless resources available to life can be quickly maxed out, even in temperate zone. There is more physical space, but again this abstract ecological space where the resources available and the actual actionable territory available that can be maxed out by whatever life does exist there. So in other words, the competition can be just as intense as in the tropics. The life that does exist maxes out the available resources and maybe in some temperate territories the competition between individuals and this can be fiercer and more uncompromising than

it is in the tropics, and at other times the other way around, which is to say, I don't accept these simple arguments about temperate versus tropical, the arguments that Weinstein and let alone those who copy him, the arguments they make either about why there are more species in the tropics, nor about the particular character of these species I don't accept, or a difference in other words between tropical and temperate types. And as for the application to human life in terms of evolution of intelligence, this becomes very complicated question because with the rise of agriculture, the meaning of competition changes. I'm not saying that evolution stops with agriculture. I'm sure we've all read 10,000 year explosion in this by Cochrane, yes I agree with that,

But competition of agricultural society is quite different, takes place in a different way than competition between species or individuals in the wild. Then you have to account for competition of individuals within a group for mates and such and between groups. But how or where is the competition of the group versus external species, how that affects individuals and their reproductive potential? This is much more questionable after you get agriculture revolution. And in any case, I have a bit more to say on this problem of temperate versus tropical species and the question of space, which, as you know, question of space is very important to me. I will be right back. Yes, I ask if a creature from movie Alien, the Xenomorph, why it never evolved on Earth?

And apparently it did evolve, but in very small scale there is marine creature phronema and it feeds on jellyfish-like creatures and its life cycle very much like creature from alien. But when I ask this question, there are all kinds of cope arguments from people who claim that all such a creature could never grow to a large size and you can't have everything and they're liars. I believe such creature already exists deep in the Congo. It has evolved. I don't want to talk about this. Does this show bother you, autism show on biological speculations? But there is a confusion in that clip I played to you from Weinstein because he really talking about his ecological space in the abstract where species are competing for matter, for resources of life, and that itself is something complicated.

It's not straightforward, because competition between individuals and species is straightforward, more or less, but between species it's not. I'm not saying competition between species doesn't take place, I'm saying it's not straightforward. It's hard to understand. For example, a predator has no interest in driving you, if you are its prey, to extinction. In fact it has quite the opposite interest. So a predator has in fact aligned interests to its prey in some unusual sense but whereas a competitor does not eat you but feeds on the same material, if that material is limited that puts a different kind of pressure. So I will tell you why I say this in a moment but you look at species that get to an island

and then they are isolated from the mainland and sometimes they escape the predator, right? You have some organism that on mainland has predator but it gets to an island, its predator does not get there. So now they are free from predation. So what happens often is they become very big and so you get island gigantism. It's called island gigantism. This happened with the turtle. Why do certain animals, when they get to Ireland, they become very big? It happened with turtle, Galapagos turtle and other places. It also happened in places like New Zealand, you get I think giant cricket. Why? Why this happened? Also some birds lose flight, you see this in New Zealand and this. And I think the argument is freedom from predation in that case allows the cricket to achieve

a hugeness that it could never achieve on the mainland. It could never otherwise have, so you see its full potential realized on the island. By contrast though, you also get island pygmy, you get island dwarfism, not just gigantism. So you get pygmy rhino, they don't exist anymore but they used to exist I think even in Mediterranean before pygmy elephant. So this happens because a big animal get to island and the material for it to continue at its previous size is not there, they don't have predator but they also don't have material. So you say it's forced by necessity to die out or to become smaller like this pygmy. And in tropical place, let's say in wet equatorial jungle, the ecological space is vast because the resources available to life are vast.

But because they proliferate, the physical space becomes crowded, right, because different forms of life are able to proliferate, the physical space becomes—there are many, many observing, you see, so they crowd upon one another, which is not the case in temperate zones for obvious reasons. The ecological space there can be filled up, the competition can be fierce, the resource is scarce, but there will always be physical space and less crowded, because not as much life can be sustained. So is Weinstein saying—and I'm sure he's not saying this, by the way—but I ask rhetorically, Is he saying, without knowing maybe, or are his followers saying it without knowing, that it's not just a competition for resources and this, but the actual condition of physical

crowdedness, of crampedness, does this have an effect on how a species evolves, on its character and its qualities? And I doubt they would go in this direction, but I do. For me this is very interesting, and I believe crowded space puts some kind of direct physiological stress on an organism and that this kind of stressor is not good for it. In other words, the organisms that face crowded conditions will, so to speak, degenerate over time. They will become stunted. Now stunted is not equivalent to smaller. You can have small versions of animals that when you look at them, you contemplate their beauty and they can be just as majestic as a bigger version, maybe in some cases more so. So I think this impression of beauty reflects a very real biological objective process that takes place.

The means, let's say, by which a species becomes bigger or smaller. What matters is not the size but how it becomes, why it becomes that. So if you just focus on that, above I gave you some example of island gigantism and island dwarfism. I just explained to you in one case as freedom from predation and the other as constriction of material resources and conditions that lead to dwarfism. But it's not always the case that animal becoming smaller is a stunted version. It can be maybe even enhanced or at the very least it can be a new special version. Again I say it depends how or why it develops in that direction. Let me give you an example, it has always fascinated me, it's the Valdivian rainforest. This is in central Chile, in southwest Argentina.

It's cold, it's a temperate rainforest, very much like the Pacific Northwest. It's very wet and cold, not too cold, maybe 9 to 13 degrees Celsius year round, maybe 9 to 17, 9 to 20, I don't know. The Chaldivian rain forest is a magic place. You see a volcano in the background, but the forest itself is full of diminutive versions of many animals, and no one is sure why. So you have the cod cod, this is my favorite feline, it's one of the smallest predatory cats in the world, very handsome feline face, and I hear a rusty spotted cat is smaller, But the cod cod, very small, and then you have the pudu, this is a very small deer, the smallest deer in the world, many such things, not just them, other small things too.

And I was talking to a friend, you all know, and we were thinking about why this is the case, because when you look at the cod cod, you see what I just said just now, it's a magnificent creature, although compared to other felines it is a mallet, the cod cod, you cannot call it a stunted version of the big cats. You must have a breeder's feel for these things when you see them. But the explanation for why this might be so is interesting. The Valdivian forest is very wet, it's high precipitation, but temperate, but high precipitation, so plant life proliferates very great. And so much so that when you add the moss that grows on trees, rocks, and so forth, And the lichens and the moss, this is in the moss itself, there is a kind of a second world.

A second world develops, a second forest mirroring the first. The second forest of the moss and the lichens. It's very extensive, but it's a diminutive world. And so you have cat, let's say normal size predator cat with spots in this. It come into the forest, you have deer, normal size deer, they come into forest and they They see this second forest of the moss and it's a sort of empty space and they decide to enter this world and to explore it and exploit it, which for life is the same thing. And it's an entirely new space, an unoccupied physical space in fact. In this case, it's both physical and ecological that they can enter, but they need to become small. If they just become small enough to master it, they can do it.

Their senses, their size needs to be redirected to that small world. And so they enter it with all the wonder and excitement of conquest of space. And they develop into this wonderful new diminutive form, which is why they don't look or feel stunted when you contemplate them. But it's actually just a different variety, maybe even enhanced. It is enhanced in a sense because at this stage it represents life on the path of ascent, that has entered a new space to conquer, and it's similar to how, you know, the orca whale, the orca whale, many times the killer whale, it's many times smaller than the sperm whale, but no one could call the orca a stunted sperm whale, right? Because actually it's not that, it's the same life force that has entered a different ecological

and physical space to exploit and explore an entirely new territory and new resources. So it's very similar to cod-cod cases. It's very beautiful, vital species. So when you get smaller, let's say, version of animal, you cannot jump to conclusion, but you have to ask this question about ecological and physical space. Why did it develop that way? Is it because, let's say, in the negative case, let's say there was a pool of water and it sustained life, but the pool dries up, let's say almost, it dries up 90%. So that scarcity leads to crowdedness, to fierce and stressful competition, but to a restriction of space and a restriction of resources. It does not drive the animal to a higher form, as you might think, but because of the scarcity

it becomes stunted, because of the competition and the scarcity it becomes cramped and stressed, so to speak. Or on the other hand, is it this other case where animal decides to become smaller in order to exploit and explore, to conquer entirely a new space, both physical territory and ecological space with increasing possibilities and so forth? And I think the difference between the two paths, the naked eye of objective observer is clear and I think analogy to mankind is also direct. And one moment I will be right back. Brennan has arrived with fresh coffees and also with oils to wash my feet. Brennan, yes, please, please begin. I'll be right back. Everything I say so far apply in some way to human species, I believe this, which has

a choice if to become like Brennan or to reject the modern mode of quantity, of speed and of filth. So you take, for example, the Paleolithic, where you have giant men, huge men with powerful bones. The skeletons of upper Paleolithic show femur, other bone capable of sustained speeds far beyond any modern athlete, capable of many other physical feats. And it's possible they were much smarter also, as they were few in number, so you cannot hold it against them as they did not build cities. You know, they did not choose to live under the heel of a tranny commissar like you're getting now. They are not as sophisticated as you to be ruled over by a tranny appointed by B. Dan to tell you what to eat. But that aside, if we just look at physical skeletal conditions, there is already a decrease

in size, not just with agriculture, you all know about that, but even before agriculture, in other words to the Mesolithic. In the Mesolithic, humans are smaller than Paleolithic, and what happened, it seems, they decide to live on shell middens. They decide to live by the ocean and to eat only oyster, shell, and the bounty of the sea, the mollusk. They collect one dollar oyster from the sea and they shuck oyster every day and it's easy living, right? up the high mobility life of upper paleolithic men who pursued herds to hunt, but they also gave up, therefore, the far more varied diet of the paleolithic, which included not just higher quality animal protein, but they probably made use also of marine resources, as the

Mesolithic did, just not rely on those exclusively, and then yes, you know about the tubers and various berry and this, whereas the shell-ridden Mesolithic, they gave up some of these sources and they leave mollusks from sea, which, you know, I love this, the shell, the shellfish and this, but possibly a lack of mobility meant they became smaller than a paleolithic man. Lack of motion in space. And still, however, the change was not as significant as what what happened when man became agricultural, and agricultural man compared to both Mesolithic and Paleolithic, but especially when you compare it to the old Stone Age man, the Neolithic farmer, Manlet, who walk around with chickpea hummus in his pocket, and it's a stunted and broken creature in all ways.

The skull and the teeth are messed up, the skeletal is weak and fragile. It's life in misery, life constraint. Look up Weston A. Price about what happens. He actually gives a loophole for traditional agricultural peoples that learned over time to get around some of these catastrophic changes. But modern man suffers very much from same diseases, same changes. Life expectancy drops also. increase at the expense of quality in a very overt way. Men self-break and self-domesticate with agriculture, as also happens now with the obesity revolution. But here you have a clear view of different paths of life. I mentioned before a very vivid example of how crowded conditions of agricultural settlements, how these affected the biological type of man.

So don't imagine agricultural life as a hardy Viking you see on Germanics with a nuclear family and huts far spaced in the village from each other and private life. It didn't happen like that. The Germanics lived that way, it's true. They had far spaced huts and a very kind of individual way of life, not just the village life, but it's because they were a pastoral people who adopted some agriculture later with slaves, and that's why they lived that way, whereas the pure Near Eastern farmer culture, when you look at their settlements in old Europe, for example around the Black Sea, the famous Cucuten tripolia culture, which is just a steaming giant mess of crowded very big settlements actually, very many, very high population.

But what they describe as the long house and this tradition continue later and today in the cities of the Orient, which for example Saigon or Vietnam is a matriarchy, and you can see what effect this domestication that went along with the cramping of physical space with crowded conditions, you can see what effect it had on men, not only physically but in their character and how they behave, I want to say morally, but it's not just morally because it's inborn, it's biological, how petty and vicious and scurrying it made people, and how this new kind of competition, the competition for the place in the longhouse or the rat pile of the oriental city, how it stunted and degraded man by stressing him. So that's who populate the American government, both GOP and Dems alike, all the cockroaches

of the federal bureaucracy and especially the security state, the aphidoid humans, the pestilence you see from movies like The Lives of Others, which I was amazed to find out some American today, the millennial or what who don't know anything about history, they think free speech is oppressive this and they watch The Lives of Others and they think the spook in that is the hero and I couldn't believe this, but apparently it's true and somebody had to explain to them, but no that kind. By contrast to what I said now with the very crowded agricultural settlements, but the contrast is very interesting, it's not just what happened before with the contrast to Paleolithic or Old Stone Age, but it's very interesting what happened when certain farmers

for example, they left Anatolia and they settled not in Europe but on other side, on Caucasus side and they were in open space by the Volga and they came in contact with some unknown but very free and very physically unusual hunter-gatherers and they mixed with them and from this mixing they chose actually to abandon agricultural life and therefore the cramped conditions and they chose to return to the open sea, the open space that is man's natural domain. So they, from point of view of agriculturalists, from point of view of that, they de-civilized and they became wild again. They became free type again, wild type again, and became actually, in this case, pastoralists. Pastoralism then is half returned to man's natural condition from point of view of agricultural revolution.

So that you can see after that, after these farmer people left the farmer Borg and joined hunter-gatherer and became pastoralists, you see the great increase again in body size of free life with protein, proton foods, so you get six foot seven, six foot nine types in the Kuban region of the Caucasus, and these were then able to easily subdue the farming villages of Europe and the civilizations of the Near East because of their physical advantages, but also the many military enhancements as well that went along with this kind of life, possibly the warrior religion and ideology that accompanied this change. So you see this question of the magnificence of the biological specimen. It's a special question to me because it's identical to the political question.

This is a political question for me, the only one. Another estate can produce magnificent specimens. How do you judge a civilization? It's not the quantity of tools that it has, it's not the butter produced per year, and it's not even the greatness of the buildings or the skyscrapers. I'm very interested in architecture, but you look at some modern city, the skyscrapers from afar, they look as if they housed some highway of life over a race that looked to space to colonization of solar system or the skies, but in fact, you know what they are inhabited by? It's glorified secretaries and glorified shopkeepers and they are financed only for this purpose and it cannot then be the buildings that are the worth of a society if the human

material is low, although I would say that the buildings are a better claim to magnificence than many other things. So what is a way to judge quality of civilization then, not whether it can produce a magnificent being. What other way do you have? Whether many people have access to a soft bed or comfort or food or not, or whether it can sustain teeming billions or a high birth rate. You know the arguments here. How is multiplication of zero worthwhile? And then it shouldn't matter to you also if happiness, so-called, is produced. Because this word, when it's used in this way, it means not only contentedness with the human animal and mediocrity and contentedness with low desires, but happiness when used this way. It's even self-defeating, of course, because happiness is fleeting.

It comes in a moment, you can't appreciate it really when you look for it, and someone searching it out and planning for it is a fool, it's just contemptible. It's like the people who make, for example, sex into something elaborate that they plan for when it should be something spontaneous and that you don't think about. But they plan it out and they drain it of its real joy. And it's the same with pursuit of happiness. It's something for weak people, for rich and sad people who have no strength of blood. Man is good in struggle, and in many ways he's happy when he's miserable. The underground man is right about that. So just if you know what miserable means in the right way, the underground man does not know that. I'm talking about Dostoevsky, underground man.

But this whole thing with pursuit of happiness, you cannot find it when you look for it, right? It's like insomnia, if you try to sleep, it doesn't work. So when it comes to the work of a political state, I ask you, for example, if it was a race of powerful creatures, let's say nine feet tall with golden skin and wings who could fly, people who planned great projects like colonization of solar system or who lived in a noble, magnanimous warrior way or whose scientists penetrated veiled mysteries of existence. This race, let's say, was given to melancholy for a third part of their lives, and to wars and to other kinds of strife. But if on the other hand you had the continuation of, well, look, I don't want to say on the

other hand to be mean and to say something like Panama, where you have this kind of Ewok-type people with almost no culture and astroturf, cargo cult culture, okay, but let's pick something far worse than Panama, which is a construction site masquerading as a country, but let's pick something far worse of the CNN or NPR newsrooms. If you had a continuation of that for 40,000 years with low T-males with squeaky voices and women with liver destroyed by oceans of wine, stem cells, and both are drowning, they're failures as biological specimens, they're drowning these in medications. They're all on meds, you know this, they're all, the shit lib is on drugs of various kinds, they're deeply unhappy people fundamentally, but they take legal and illegal drugs to erase

the memory of who they really are. And let's say that heavy medication and alcoholism gives this, the NPR newsroom melancholy only 10% of the time, although for them it's not melancholy, it's more like dread and anxiety and despair. You know, melancholy can be a beautiful feeling, but you give this contrast and you ask, which would you have? And if you don't want to compare to my winged hyperborean beings, you compare them maybe not even to ancient Greeks or to Renaissance Italians, but even to Pashtuns or to Lithuanians. And you have your answers from point of view of horse breather, I think, very clear. Which really is the happier race? The Finns or the Lithuanians, very powerful biological base, and I like to think then of this. I look on horizon sometimes. I sit by sea all day.

I look at ships coming into port on horizon every day. It reminds me of time long ago. I was waiting for great voyage and I think such voyage will begin sometime quite soon. Again, we go to Dominica soon. I will build the best hotel in Dominica. Best cocktails. Until next time, Bap out.