CHAPTER ONE: THE PARASITE
Most of us think of a parasite as something distasteful, whose role in life is to feed at the expense of someone else. As a result, the term, when applied to humans, is always one of disgust. In the animal and plant kingdoms, also, the parasite is universally disliked. The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) defines the term.
"Parasite–
1. One who eats at the table, or at the expense of, another; always an opprobrious application.
2. Biol. An animal or plant which lives in or upon another organism (technically called its host) and draws its nutriment directly from it.
3. (fig.) a person whose part or action resembles that of an animal parasite."
Thus we find that a parasite is one who is disliked, who feeds at the expense of another, and who lives in or upon another organism which is called the host. We also find that the term can be applied to a person whose life follows the classic life pattern of the parasite.
Now, in the study of mankind, we find that there is one group or classification of persons who appear persistently in the records of the great civilizations. They are always disliked, yet they remain in the midst of the people who dislike them, and if they are driven out, they insist upon returning, no matter at what cost to themselves. We also find that they always manage to live at the expense of others.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines parasitism as follows:
"Parasitism – a one-sided nutritive relationship between two organisms of different kinds, a relationship which is more or less injurious, yet not usually fatal, to the host; a relationship, moreover, that relieves the parasite from most of the activity or struggle which is usually associated with procuring food, and thus tends to favour or induce some degree of simplification or degeneracy."
In the record of many civilizations, we find that the presence of the parasitic group is in many instances fatal to the host people, because it effects fundamental changes in the life pattern of the host people, and diverts their primary energies to the feeding of the parasites. This alteration affects every aspect of the host people’s existence, and inevitably weakens them to the point where they are destroyed. Since the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers above to a purely biological parasitic condition in the animal and the plant kingdoms, it is true that the parasitic relationship can be injurious without being fatal, over a period of time, yet even in these instances, we find many examples of plants and animals being killed by parasites, a fact which apparently was not known to the learned scholar who authored the authoritative Encyclopaedia Britannica article on this condition.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica also paragraphs an important factor in the present study, the localization of the parasite within the host. The Britannica article points out that,
"Parasites are often localized to a particular site within the host."
Since the parasite has reduced its life aims to one goal, that of remaining upon the host and feeding at its expense, it must choose a location where this is possible. The location must be one from which the host cannot readily dislodge it, and it must be one which allows the parasite to feed without exertion. As a result, the parasite usually chooses a place in or near the reproductive organs or the excretory organs of the host.
Throughout history, the parasitic group has chosen to localize itself near the reproductive or the excretory organs of the host. In most cases, this has meant settling in the great cities of the host people, although, in nations which were primarily agricultural, the parasitic group managed to disperse itself among the villages.
Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines the parasite as "2a – an organism living in or on another living organism, obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of structural modifications.
THE ABILITY TO MODIFY
This is an important characteristic of the parasitic group in the history of mankind. It has exhibited an amazing ability to change or to modify itself in order to achieve its parasitic goal. It has developed extremely refined techniques for remaining upon the host, and sophisticated methods of continuing to feed at the host’s expense. It has adopted many guises, and it has shown a tremendous amount of adaptability for appearing in various forms, in order to remain in place.
To continue with Webster’s Third International Dictionary –
"Parasite 3. something that resembles the biological parasite in dependence upon something else for existence without making a useful or adequate return (illus. the great city is a parasite on the country – Francois Bondy)."
This is the last important key to the solution of our problem, the decay of human civilization. The parasite depends on something else for existence without making a useful or an adequate return. Throughout our study of history, we find that the parasitic group never makes any return or shows any gratitude for being allowed to feed upon the host. The parasites motto is "always take." Should we be surprised, then to find that this motto actually appears in the written literature of a known parasitic group?
We now ask the reader – what group appears and reappears in the history of one civilization after another? What group has always been actively disliked by its host peoples? What group has played an often decisive role in the decay and collapse of one civilization after another? What group indulges in every type of degeneracy? What group always localizes to certain positions among the host peoples? And what group refuses to fulfill a constructive role in any civilization, but instead, remains true to its motto of "Always take," while refusing to make a useful or an adequate return? The Biological Jew 3
KNOWN AS THE JEWS
This group, as the reader may have already surmised from his own studies, is known throughout history as the Jews. Prior to the present study, human individuals or groups living at the expense of others were often called parasites, but this term was used purely in a sociological sense, without any biological point of reference. Plantation owners were said to be parasites because they lived at the expense of their slaves, aristocrats were said to be parasites because they lived at the expense of the masses, armies were said to be parasites because they lived at the expense of the workers.
But, in every case, the supposed parasites were performing certain duties and fulfilling certain responsibilities in the society. Thus we find that in the purely sociological sense, it is possible to name many groups as parasitical, such as children and those who are too old to work. They are certainly feeding at the expense of others, performing no useful work, and making no adequate return. But these groups either have done useful work in the past, or they are expected to do so in the future. Thus, they do not fall within the accepted framework of the biological definition of a parasite. Throughout this work, we will find that the biological references hold true to an amazing degree, in establishing the history and the presence of a parasitical group, and that in every instance, the records of the Jews prove that they are fulfilling the role of biological parasites.
OTHER BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS
In nature, we find that the parasite often attempts to disguise its parasitic life cycle, and to appear to be like ordinary plants and animals. Thus, a description of the biological plant, Krameria, in "The Conditions of Parasitism in Plants," by D. T. Macdougal and W. A. Cannon (Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1910):
"The Western United States desert bush Krameria is parasitic on a number of woody hosts. Krameria does not at first glance seem to be a parasite, for it does not grow directly upon its host, but its roots reach out beneath the ground and tap the roots of its host, drawing nutriment therefrom. Its favorite host is Covillea tridentata, although it is also parasitic on the acacia and a number of other plants. Its condition of parasitism was discovered after scientists were puzzled that it had no deep-going tap root. It is a grayish shrub, bearing fruit and leaves at certain seasons of the year."
The parasite in nature often finds it convenient to disguise itself and its aims, and to convince others that it is something else, in order to carry out its parasitic mission. Also, the parasite is not a species, but a form of life, which preys upon many other different species. In this regard, the Jew as a biological species is not so much a race, as it is a type which preys upon all other races. As Geoffrey LaPage points out, in his definitive work, "Parasitic Animals" (Cambridge University Press, 1951, page 1),
"A parasitic animal is not a particular species of animal, but an animal which has adopted a certain way of living."
In regard to Krameria’s failure to develop a deep tap root, which is not necessary for its parasitic existence, we may note that the Jew never develops deep roots in any culture of a host people, but confines himself to the most superficial and the most quickly profitable aspects of its existence.
Therefore, a Jew is not so much a particular species in the civilized world, as he is a type which has adopted a certain form of parasitic life and adapted himself to exist upon a host which can provide his food.
