The Parasite Pt. 1


by Eustace Mullins


At the age of forty-five, Eustace Mullins has completed thirty years of continuous activity as a writer, an artist and a businessman.

With five books currently in print on fine arts, religious and economic subjects, he also carries on a fulltime business career, and is known as an artist’s artist, a serious painter who has restored distance to the art of landscape, and whose paintings have won many prizes. He has also won prizes for his exhibits of photographs, both portraits and still lifes.

In business, he has been active as an economist, and in public relations.

Eustace Mullins is a veteran of the United States Air Force, with thirty-eight months of active service during World War II. A native Virginian, he was educated at Washington and Lee University, New York University, the Escuela des Bellas Artes, Mexico, and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Washington, D.C.

He served as legislative researcher during the late Senator Joseph McCarthy’s battle against Communism, and has been a member of the staff of the Library of Congress. He has been a consultant on highway taxation for the American Petroleum Institute, an editor of Institutions Magazine, and an editorial director of the Chicago Motor Club. For fifteen years, he devoted his services as editor and writer to the better-known conservative publications in the United States. For a number of years, he was active in attempts to free the poet Ezra Pound from an illegal confinement in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, in Washington, D.C.

He was the first writer to have a book burned in Germany after World War II, when a German edition of ten thousand copies of Mullins on the Federal Reserve was burned by Dr. Otto John, West Germany’s Intelligence Director, a few days before he defected to Communist East Germany.


For twenty-five years, I have studied the problems of human failure, of falling short of the promise, and of the decay and collapse of great empires. This phenomenon has existed throughout the five thousand years that man has been recording the history of his efforts. During the first twenty years that I devoted to this study, I amassed huge files of information about the various civilizations. I compared these facts in order to find common denominators which might lead to a solution. I also took into consideration such factors as man’s environment, his nature, and the persistence of certain patterns in his behaviour.

This led me to an involved study of the animal kingdom, and a compilation of those factors which it bore in common with the plant kingdom. About five years ago, I discovered the common denominator of man’s civilizations. I had come to it directly through my studies in biology, for this common denominator is found throughout the plant and the animal kingdoms. Because it was a natural phenomenon, and such a ubiquitous one, an ordinary and accepted part of all levels of plant and animal life, no scholar had previously thought to examine this factor as a prime cause of the degeneration and fall of empires.

This factor was parasitism. In the great advances which medicine had made during the past century, one of its most impressive achievements had been the rapidly developing field of parasitology. It had been found that many of man’s most serious ailments were caused by parasites. From these studies, it was only a matter of time before scholars would be able to deduce that a similar condition might occur among man’s civilizations, and that it might also cause sickness and death. It was to be expected that in their autopsies of buried empires, scholars should conclude that this condition, parasitism, was a definitive factor in the fatal diseases which befell human civilizations.

But no scholar advanced this conclusion. In the entire Library of Congress, no work can be found which deals with the social effects of parasitism on civilization. There are hundreds of works about the medical aspects of parasitism, but none about its equally serious socio-economic effects. Why is this? Why have not the thousands of scholars in this field, casting desperately for the slightest limb on which to build the flimsy thought which will serve as their doctorial thesis, been unable to see what is in front of them, the destructive effects of parasitic groups on civilization?

Let us offer the simplest explanation, since that is the usually correct one. The parasitic group in the civilization has fixed its domination over the academic and scholarly world. It would not tolerate any academic study which threatened its continued domination. Is this a far-fetched conclusion? Then let us search for a better one, and after we have been unable to find one, let us examine several accepted factors. First, we know that parasitism exists in mankind. Second, the parasitic group is a compact, well-directed (and inner- directed) species. Third, the parasitic group, in order to maintain its parasitic position, must exercise some sort of control over its host, because no host willingly tolerates the presence of the parasite. One obvious form of control would be a control over what the host thinks about, reads, and sees as entertainment, education and news.

The studies of parasitism have progressed at a fantastic rate during the twentieth century, and I can take no special credit for having formulated the social theory of the parasitic group in human civilization, because this theory has been staring us in the face for at least two generations past. Nevertheless, so obscured has been this phenomenon that it took me five years to develop this theory, and I am aware that even now, I am only opening the door for a host of scholars who can employ this theory to shed much greater light upon human problems than I have been able to do in this comparatively brief time.

Insofar as it has been possible, I have attempted to make this work as non-technical as possible, as much as the nature of the theory allowed, so that scholars in many other fields could employ it in their own work. The ramifications of this theory indicate that it can be immediately useful, and profitable, in the areas of sociology, government, and history, both for the professional scholar and for the layman.

Eustace Mullins, 9-25-67, Washington, D.C.



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.


  1. One who eats at the table, or at the expense of, another; always an opprobrious
  2. 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 ”

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.

We find, too, that the parasitic group is continually denounced by the more moral elements among the host people, because the parasitic group indulges in every known type of degeneracy. The reasons for this are obvious. As the Encyclopaedia Britannica article points out, a parasitic existence leads to degeneracy. Since the parasite does not have to trouble himself with the active procurement of food, he has plenty of time and energy to devote himself to the vilest pursuits, and to the debauching of members of the host people.

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.


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?



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.


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.

  1. 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.

LaPage continues,

“Unlike many other biological terms, the word parasite and its adjective parasitic have been taken into the every day language of men and women, and have, in the course of common usage, acquired emotional and moral connotations with which science – and therefore biology – has nothing whatever to do. The biologist’s outlook is scientific, and because it is so, he does everything in his power to remove from his studies all human likes and dislikes and all human moral judgments. He neither despises nor admires, likes or dislikes, condemns or approves, the parasitic organism. He studies it, its way of living as dispassionately as he can, seeing parasites as one of the various ways of living practiced by different kinds of animals.”



We agree whole heartedly with Professor LaPage’s admonition to be completely scientific and to follow the resolve not to be swayed by emotional judgments. It was precisely by this method of dispassionate study that this writer arrived at his definition of the biological Jew. Only by studying him unemotionally as a biological phenomenon can we hope to learn how to combat the maleficent influence which the parasitic body inevitably exerts upon the more advanced human civilizations.

LaPage points out that we find, in general, two kinds of animal associations, those who belong to one species, such as herds, colonies of coral, communities of bees, etc., and two, associations of different species in the same area. To this second category, parasitism belongs, for we find groups with roots in an area entertaining parasites who have no roots in that area. One of the more interesting facets of parasitism is that the parasite lives an existence which often goes beyond the customary laws of nature and of man. The parasite seems not to be bound by limiting factors of climate, geography, and other elements which play a commanding role in the lives of most groups. Thus we find that a parasite can survive in an area in which it has no roots, while its host does have roots in the area and has established its existence there over a period of time.


LaPage also remarks that parasitism is different from commensalism, a frequently-encountered biological term which means “eating at the same table.” He cites as examples of commensalisms, the ox-picker birds which perch upon the backs of rhinoceros, elephants and other large animals on the African plains. These birds not only eat ticks, lice and other parasites which infest the animals, but they also warn the animals of approaching danger.

In England, we find that starlings and sheep have a similar commensal arrangement. We also have the phenomenon of symbiosis, a


biological term meaning “living together.” This is a somewhat more intimate living arrangement than commensalism, because we find in symbiosis a physiological dependence of each partner upon the other. Each one supplies some food to the other without which life would be more difficult, or even impossible, and neither lives an independent life.

Parasitism, however, is defined by LaPage as similar to commensalism and symbiosis in that the association is based upon the need for an adequate food supply. He states that parasitism is an association between one partner, called the parasite, which obtains, by a number of different methods, its food from the body of the other partner, which is called the host of the parasite. But, asks LaPage, does the other partner, the host, benefit? He answers that it never does. The host is always injured by the parasite. Thus parasitism differs from commensalism and symbiosis in two particulars; first, not both, but only one of the partners, the parasite, gains a food supply, and second, not both, but only one of the partners benefits, while the host always suffers some injury.


LaPage conjectures that the first parasite may have been a non-parasitic organism which penetrated by some route the body of another kind of animal, and found some food there, such as blood, which was rich in nutrition and easily digestible, and that, in the course of evolution, the descendants of this first parasite liked this way of life, and maintained such an association with some other animal. Eventually, these types became wholly dependent upon parasitism as a way of obtaining food and could not survive without following it. Thus it became an “obligatory parasite,” completely dependent physiologically upon its host. As LaPage points out, the host does not tolerate passively this association with the parasite, but reacts to the injury which it is suffering. He says,

“The struggle between host and parasite went on according to the laws of evolution, and this battle is constantly being waged today.

Parasitism is quite different from the relationship of prey and predator, in which one body gets its nourishment by killing and absorbing the body of another. Here the predator is always larger and stronger than its prey, while the parasite is always smaller and weaker than its host.”


Thus we find that here once more the parasite violates a fundamental law of nature. It is a law of nature that the stronger survives at the expense of the weaker, the survival of the fittest, as the weaker is eaten to provide nourishment for the strong. In the phenomenon of the parasite, however, we find that the weaker survives at the expense of the stronger, the least fitted to survive becomes the victor, and the stronger is vanquished.

This too is a fundamental aspect of the life cycle of the biological Jew. Throughout history, he has always been smaller and weaker than his gentile host, yet he has often managed to subdue him. The puny weakling, as celebrated by the Jewish comedian Charlie Chaplin, always manages to outwit and to defeat his larger and stronger gentile opponent. We find that this celebration is a fundamental approach in all Jewish humor, literature and art. The small David is shown defeating the larger Goliath, the cunning Mordecai is shown defeating the stronger gentile official, Haman. David, of course, is the small parasite, and Goliath is the large host, who is struck down from afar, before he has a chance to use his superior strength against the weakling challenger.


LaPage classifies as “temporary parasites” those insects such as mosquitoes and leeches, which suck the blood of the host. He names them ectoparasites because they do not enter the body of the host. Other lice, which live beneath the skin of their hosts, are classified as endoparasites. There are also hyperparasites, who live off of other parasites (the rabbinical dynasties), and brood or social parasites, which are found in ant and bee families, and which live off of the community.


LaPage points out that every animal, whatever its mode of life, is gradually altered by the slow processes of evolution. He says that the parasite, far from being an exception to this rule, actually exemplifies it.

“It develops teeth with which to rasp the tissues of the host, sucking apparatuses to suck its juices, coagulants to hold onto the host body. The remarkable cunning with which some kinds of bloodsucking bats stalk their victims and steal their blood must also be reckoned among the modifications which their temporarily parasitic habits have produced. Species of Desmodus attack cattle, horses and other animals, including man and poultry, when they are asleep at night. They watch their victims carefully, and, when they are asleep, they walk or sidle up to them and scoop out a piece of flesh so delicately that the sleeping animal often is not aware of the bite until the bleeding is discovered in the morning.”

One of the specialized modifications of the Jew is his ability to suck the blood of the gentile host without alarming his victim, weakening it without being discovered, through the highly sophisticated and refined instruments and techniques which the Jew has developed over a period of centuries for these specific purposes, and which have no counterpart in any other species. In view of these techniques, need we be surprised that some of the gentiles who have been most weakened by the blood-lettings of the Jew are among his most vociferous defenders, and who will fight to the death to protect their Jewish “benefactors.” They are totally unable to recognize their danger, or the insidious nature of the parasitic attack.


LaPage describes a type of parasite called the hagfish, which is classified as one of the Cyclostomes, a name whose origin refers to the circular opening inside their mounts. He says,


“All of these fishes have a wormlike shape and perhaps the best known of them is the lamprey. The hagfish has two rows of teeth on its powerful tongue and one median tooth upon the roof of its mouth. Its eyes are very important and are buried beneath the skin, probably because the hagfish burrows deeply into the tissues of the fish which it attacks, so that its eyes have become useless. For the same reason, its gill openings are connected by long tubes to a single opening on the surface much farther back than the gill openings of the lamprey, so that the hagfish can breathe water while its head end is buried in the body of the fish upon which it is parasitic. Some species of hagfish can attach themselves so firmly by means of their sutorial mouths to the living fish that these fish can only rarely shake them off. They then rasp off the flesh of the fish and suck their blood. Some species of them consume the fish muscle until little is left of the living fish except its bones and viscera, and the fish dies.”

Thus LaPage offers a complete contradiction of the definitive and scholarly article of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on Parasitism which contends that the parasite is never fatal to the host. The activities of the hagfish, in sucking the blood of the still living fish until it dies, closely corresponds to the ancient Jewish religious rite of ritual murder, in which the healthy gentile victim is strapped down onto a table, ritual cuts are made into his flesh, and the flowing blood is drunk by the celebrating Jews in one of the most important symbolic acts of their parasitic existence. The ceremony of blood-drinking continues until the gentile victim expires, in a social re-enactment of the physical activities of such parasites as the hagfish. Here we see the close correlation between the activities of parasites in the plant and animal kingdoms and those which have developed through the centuries of human civilization.

LaPage states that many leeches combine organs of attachment with organs of suction, but others have only organs of attachment, such as the hooklets developed by many kinds of parasitic animals which are attached either to the exterior or to the internal organs of the host. In the same way, when the host people of a Jewish community of parasites attempts to dislodge it, they find that the parasite has extended specialized tentacles of attachment deep into every facet of the host people’s life. So deeply rooted are these tentacles that the dislodgement is not only difficult, it is such a demanding and painful operation that the dislodgement itself may be fatal to the host.

The host finds that its mortgages are held by Jewish bankers, its children are being taught by Jewish teachers, its government is being administered by Jewish “advisors” or “consultants,” who, even if they hold no elective or appointive office, still make the important decisions. They turn for solace to their religion, and they find that Jewish converts, aided by appropriate gifts of money, have entered into the offices of their denominations, and have risen rapidly until the religious beliefs are altered to embrace all of the tenets of the parasitic community of Jews. What, then, does the gentile host have left? The seemingly inevitable doom of being slowly bled to death, after which the parasites will leave the body of their victim and seek another host.


LaPage points out that in many instances, the adult phases of the parasite do not move much about the hosts body, because they are surrounded by food and can obtain it without the help of locomotive organs. Thus, we find that the Jews are not much interested in the transportation industry, preferring the more sedentary occupations. The parasitic community actually can and does become completely immobile in the host for long periods of time, because it is characterized by the ability of dormancy, of lying without moving through the years, while losing none of its potency. We find that ticks bearing infectious diseases can remain in the ground for as long as one hundred years, and when they emerge, they are still infectious.

Jewish communities have established themselves in gentile nations and remained for hundreds of years without exhibiting any signs of being dangerous to their hosts, but, if the gentile host attempts to dislodge them, they immediately rise to the challenge and bring into play their specialized modifications for remaining upon the host. LaPage points out that parasites are naturally inclined to lead a sedentary life, “and undergo the modifications to which this mode of life leads.”

As a result of their parasitic mode of life, the Jewish communities have developed sedentary habits, which in turn have led to certain diseases, directly attributable to this sedentary life, and which have been known for their high incidence among the Jews. Thus diabetes is referred to in many medical dictionaries as “the Jewish disease.”

Diabetes occurs principally because the sedentary and parasitic life prevents Jews from burning up the excess blood sugars which they ingest in their diet, and which are intended for use in direct forms of energy. This causes a surfeit of sugar in the system, which becomes the disease of diabetes. Also, generations of sedentary persons cause malfunctions or the gradual weakening of the pancreas and other organs which are responsible for controlling the level of blood sugar. Thus, diabetes becomes a hereditary disease among generations of sedentary people.

The Jewish community has developed a number of degenerative types of disease, such as blood disorders, cancers of various kinds, and other forms of physical degeneration, which are directly attributable to their mode of parasitic existence, and to the physical degeneracy which it produces. As they cohabit with the gentile community, and as their sedentary mode of life becomes more widely practiced, these degenerative diseases begin to appear throughout the host community.

In one of the most important physical correlations between the Jewish community and the known types of parasitic organism in the plant and animal kingdoms, LaPage says:

“Among other organs which are often reduced or lost when parasitic life is adopted is the nervous system. It may be reduced as a whole or the reduction may affect chiefly the eyes and other organs. Organs of special sense are best developed in active animals which feed upon other animals and need to defend themselves against their enemies. They are not required by parasitic animals which live a relatively sheltered existence on or inside the bodies of their hosts amid a relative abundance of food.”

The effect of a parasitic mode of existence upon the nervous system, which can be observed in many types of parasites, are especially noteworthy in the Jew. The degeneration of the nervous system into a state of severe mental illness in an average of thirty percent of all Jews has long been supposed by sociologists to be due to the physical interbreeding in the Jewish community, but the high incidence of mental illness in Jews whose families have intermarried with gentiles is the same rate as those who have remained within the Jewish community. This points to a strictly biological origin of this degeneracy of the nervous system, and bears out Professor LaPage’s contention that the leading of a parasitic mode of existence inevitably leads to a reduction or a degeneracy of the nervous system.


One of the most striking observations which LaPage has made in this study of animal parasites is his discovery that, “Because this mode of life tends to cause a loss of (skeletal) structure resistant enough to be preserved as fossils, we have little geological evidence of the past history of parasitic animals. At least six species of fossil roundworms, however, have been described, two of these, Hydonius antiquus and H. matutinus in the Eocine lignite, and the other four in Baltic amber.”

The effortless existence led by the parasite not only affects its nervous system, which like any other physical attribute, tends to atrophy when not used or required by the animal, but it also leads, over a period of time, to extensive skeletal changes in the structure of the animal, tending towards a soft, amorphous bone structure which soon disintegrates after the death of the parasite. Here is another remarkable correlation between the life cycles of parasitic animals and the life cycle of the Jew. Because of their parasitic mode of existence, the Jews have left no artifacts which could be discovered among the ruins of ancient civilizations, even though they are known to have been present for long periods of time during these civilizations. Despite the historical records of their presence, we can find no concrete artifacts signifying their existence.



Because we have heard, and still hear, so much about the great Jewish cultures of the past, archeologists have made extensive efforts to discover some examples of Jewish art and sculpture and architecture in ancient cultures, the solid evidences which survive the ravages of time and natural catastrophes. Yet they found nothing. The sole results of these searches are a few pieces of crude waterpots, fashioned from mud, which a Stone Age man could have produced with his bare hands, since he did not know the use of the pottery wheel which made its appearance among early civilizations. These scanty evidences of the great Jewish past is but one more witness to the biological parasitical existence which the Jew has always led as a soft, amorphous and rootless creature feeding at the expense of others, and leaving no concrete artifacts to memorialize his presence.

LaPage says, “Human writings about some species of parasitic animals take us back to the earliest records of man. The Egyptian Papyrus from 1600 B.C. refers to tapeworms, blood flukes and hookworms of man.”

Thus the biological parasite has been a problem of man since the dawn of recorded history. Although humans have been aware of the physical discomfort and danger which animal parasites have always presented to him, they have consistently failed to recognize the specific danger of the Jewish parasite until it was too late.

LaPage says, “The parasitic animal has to contend with difficulties and risks to which non-parasites are not exposed. It may have gained shelter and abundance of food, but it has obtained these at the cost of partial or complete dependence upon its hosts. The parasitic animal must find it and get into it or on its surface and it must maintain itself in these situations.”

Thus the Jew encounters several dangers which do not ordinarily imperil other types of communities. Foremost among these is the danger of genocide, of actions against its community as a group, when the host discovers that its presence is endangering its health. The Jew is the only human group which has repeatedly undergone mass actions, or pogroms, against it.

Because of its parasitic mode of existence, the Jewish community made no effort to develop a nation or an independent state during thousands of years of recorded history. This meant that the Jew had no standing army for his defense against enemies. When a Jewish state, Israel, was finally established, the nation’s budget identified it as an extension of the parasitic community, for seventy percent of its national budget consisted of contributions from abroad, and thirty percent from the sale of bonds which, of course, were worthless and which would never be paid off.


Because of its total dependence upon the gentile host, the Jewish parasite develops a deep hatred and a contempt for the animals which provide it with food and shelter. This hatred is a protective frame which acts as a shield for the Jewish community, and prevents it from accepting the life and goals of the host people for its own. Herbert Spencer may have been focusing upon the Jewish parasitic phenomenon when he wrote,

“If a group places a premium on the quality of enmity, in contrast with that of amity, a criminal type evolves.”

Since the Jew is the only group which places a premium on the quality of enmity, Spencer must have been making an oblique reference to the Jewish parasite. From the standpoint of the host people, everything that the Jew does is a manifestation of a criminal act, but from the parasite’s standpoint, he is only following the procedures of his life cycle which have evolved and been established over a period of thousands of years. The conflict comes from two separate and irreconcilable codes of ethics, that of the host, which places a premium upon decency, honor and self-reliance, and that of the parasite, which operates from an established modus vivendi of parasitism.

The Jew lives in constant fear of rejection, of being thrown off of the host, which would mean his starvation and death. As a result, the Jew sees everything in the light of how he “relates” to the host, or how he maintains his parasitic situation.


The adaptive modifications of the parasite are attempts to anticipate possible changes in the host. LaPage says, “Other parasites correlate their life histories with that of the host; the monogenetic fluke, Polystoma integerrimum, which lives in the bladder of the common frog, ignores all tadpoles which have not reached a stage of development in which they can survive in them, but when it meets with one which has, its aimless behaviour ceases; its seems to pause and await its opportunity to dart through the spoutlike opening into the bag around the internal gills. How it knows the tadpole has reached this stage of internal development we do not know, but perhaps it is helped by its eye spots and its nervous system or by chemical substances secreted by the tadpole into the water which stimulate the miracidium larva.”

The extrasensory ability of the parasite to spot a suitably developed host has always been characteristic of the Jews. From earliest history, he has made unerringly for the most advanced and the most promising civilizations, ignoring the more backwards or undeveloped peoples. Thus, we do not find the Jew sharing the Spartan existence of the pygmies in the Uturi rain forest; he is living in a comfortable apartment in New York, dining on caviar and champagne.


LaPage observes that the timing of the release of the parasitic animals reproductive phases so that they may infect the host is also shown by some species of protozoa which live in the rectum of the frog. Here again we note the affinity of the parasite for the excretory organs, the previously mentioned Polystoma integerrimum, which resides in the bladder of the frog, and the protozoa which prefer the rectum of the frog as the most suitable environment for its life.

LaPage states that the dormancy of parasites is a continuously observed phenomenon, retaining their potency during many years of inactivity and isolation. Thus, a community of Jews may live torpidly in its ghetto for centuries, seemingly self-absorbed in its own parochial existence, and having little effect upon its gentile host, until some combination of factors will cause it to become furiously active. In a short time, it permeates every aspect of the host peoples existence, and brings it to the point of destruction. The community of Jews in the Frankfort ghetto of Germany is a good illustration of this type of parasitic dormancy. It remained dormant for three hundred years, and within the span of a single generation, produced a group of bankers and traders who soon won control of the destinies of Western civilization.



LaPage points out that parasites cause defense reactions in the host against a parasitic invader, such as efforts to localize and neutralize the injurious effects of the parasite, attempts to repair the damage done, and efforts to kill or to remove the parasite. He describes these as “tissue reactions,” and these are primarily local reactions, but more advanced reactions, such as a resistance immunity, may be developed by the host as the reaction of the entire organism. He says that tissue reactions are inflammations caused by bacteria, “viruses and inanimate agencies, and may be acute or chronic. They are the results of injury or irritation caused by organs or teeth of the parasitic animal, by its migration through these tissues, or by chemical substances which it secrets or excretes into the body of the host.”


LaPage goes on at some length to describe the various types of damage which the parasite inflicts upon the host. He says that in addition to these various tissue damages, parasites introduce other types of parasites into the host, as well as dangerous viruses. The parasites may produce substances which are injurious to the host, toxins or other kinds of poisons. In effect, then, the parasite begins to exercise a dangerous influence over the life cycle of the host, one which goes far beyond the simple goal of remaining attached to the host and obtaining food from it. Whether the parasite consciously intends it or not, it gradually becomes the most important single influence in the life of the host. The story of the newspaper business in the United States is a typical example. A century ago, newspapers were small and insignificant in this country, while the profession of journalism ranked only slightly above the professions of ratcatcher and garbage hauler. As the Jews began to assume a more prominent role in the life of the gentile host, they found that newspapers were an essential vehicle for their goals. They began to flood everyone with newspapers, and the newspapers became virus carriers of various forms of mental poisons and toxins which either stupefied, confused or paralyzed the gentile host, putting it into a state of suspended animation as long as these venoms could be maintained.


As LaPage points out, the parasite introduces other types of parasites into the host. We find that when the Jews obtained control of the United States Immigration Service in the 1890s, through such Jewish Commissioners as Straus and Cohen, the gates were opened for a flood of Jewish immigrants from the ghettoes of Europe, most of whom had been excluded previously on grounds of illiteracy, criminal backgrounds, and various forms of physical contagions or mental illnesses.

LaPage also says, “Parasites may cause biological changes such as species which cause changes in the hosts reproductive glands, parasitic castration, such as the parasitic crustacean Sacculina, which destroys the reproductive organs of the host, the short-tailed spider cram, Inacus mauritanicus, which is attacked by Sacculina neglecta. The effects of Sacculina cause seventy percent of male crabs to acquire some of the secondary sexual characteristics of the female. The abdomen of these males becomes broad, they may acquire, in addition to their male copulating styles, appendages modified to bear eggs, and their nippers become smaller at the same time.”

It is inevitable that the enormous effect which the parasite has upon the host would result in some biological alterations such as the effect of Sacculina upon Inacus mauritanicus. We have seen in America during the past quarter of a century, coincident with the great power attained by the Jews in every walk of life, startling modifications in the appearances and habits of American males, as well as a vast increase in the public practice of male homosexuality. American males have taken on some of the secondary sexual characteristics of the female, and they have shown amazing declines in such primary male characteristics as energy, aggressiveness, and physical strength.

The traditional roles of the sexes have also undergone sweeping changes, due principally to Jewish agitation for “sexual equity.”

This campaign has not resulted in sexual equality, since this equality could only be attained by eradicating all physical differences between males and females. However, it has resulted in a decline of masculine traits in the American male, as well as psychological confusion as to his role. This development can be equated with the pernicious influence which the parasite exercises upon the host, as LaPage describes the encounter of Sacculina with Inacus mauritanicus. Here again, we note the remarkable activity and influence of the parasite in relation to the reproductive and the excretory organs of the host.


LaPage notes throughout his definitive studies of the parasite-host relationship that the host’s defense against the parasite is always of an activist or a reactionary nature, such as cattle switching their tails, fish taking evasive action in sudden, unpredictable twists and turns, and other wild actions which they hope will dislodge the parasite. During the five thousand years that history has recorded the presence of the biological parasite in civilized communities, we cannot find a single shred of evidence that the host people has ever treated the parasite phenomenon in any but an activist manner, an unthinking, involuntary action to dislodge the parasite.

The host instinctively reacts against the presence of the parasite, because it knows it will suffer in an injury form this strange creature, with its differing life cycle and goals. This is why the Jews always call those who oppose them “reactionaries,” that is, those who react against the presence of the parasite. Consequently, one of the major tasks of the parasite is to seek out all potential “reactionaries” among the host people and eliminate them.


Because of this blind, unthinking reaction, which seldom is effective in ridding the host of the parasite, LaPage says,

“The basic essential of any campaign against a parasitic animal is a thorough knowledge of every phase of its life history and also of its relationships with all the hosts with which it can live. We need to know all the hosts because some of them may be reservoir hosts maintaining sources of the parasites which can then infect man. With this knowledge, we can select for attack the weakest points in the life history and biology of the parasitic animal.”

Research and education, then, are the tools which are needed to counterattack against the evil influence of the parasite. Above all, we must avoid blind, instinctive reaction, since the parasite has long since learned how to anticipate and control such reaction, and even to use it for its own advantage.


LaPage points out that “Host and parasitic animal must always be considered together, because the parasitic animal is, like all other living things, intimately related throughout its existence to its environment. The fact that environment is, for a part or whole of its life, the surface or interior of another animal, does not absolve the parasitologist from the biologist’s practice of considering animal and environment together as a whole. A second objective is the demonstration that some species of parasitic animals are among the most powerful enemies of man and his civilization.”

The parasites concern with his environment sheds light upon one of the most important intellectual developments of modern man, the Enlightenment, that revolutionary force which has spearheaded the growing control of the parasite over the host. The

pre-Enlightenment centuries of human thought considered man’s environment as a secondary consideration, because of faith in powers of the individual, and the belief that he individual could triumph over his environment. After the sudden importance given to such French intellectuals as Jean Jacques Rousseau, man was no longer considered as important as his environment. All at once, our leading thinkers decided that environment was the most important thing in life. And indeed it is, to the parasite, whose environment is the host which feeds him.

But to the host, who is making his own way in life, environment is not the primary factor in his development. But to the parasite, environment is everything. All Socialist thinkers, and the various schools of sociological thought which have crept out of this development, place primary importance upon man’s environment, rather than upon his powers to use that environment and to create a life for himself, as he achieves his life’s goals.

When we understand the theory of the parasite, we are able to understand, FOR THE FIRST TIME, the entire modern Socialist school of thought, because we can recognize it for what it is, the environmental psychology which the parasite has developed around his own life cycle. As such, it negates all of the host’s thought, goals and culture.

LaPage urges us to remember that the parasite is among the most powerful enemies of man and his civilization. Here again, he seems on the verge of going into the Jewish problem, but he shies away from applying his theories to the problems of human’s sociology. Certainly he could not have been referring to parasitic viruses, or to the blood-sucking mosquitoes, for even if they hindered the building of the Panama Canal, they cannot be said to have caused the collapse of any human civilization. What could he mean but the biological parasite which has infested man’s civilization since the beginning of recorded history, and which has brought about the downfall of one empire after another? Perhaps that is why he urges us to select for attack “the weakest points, in the life history and the biology of the parasitic animal.”


This entry was posted in Uncategorized-Kategoriefrei. Bookmark the permalink.