Category: parasitism

Human Symbiosis

What can we say about symbiosis in human interactions?

Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις “living together”, from σύν “together” and βίωσις “living”)[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. The organisms, each termed a symbiont, may be of the same or of different species.

Let’s consider some aspects of symbiosis in human interactions, with an emphasis on inter-ethny relations.  This is not meant to be a comprehensive or final determination but merely an introduction, so these paradigms can be applied in future discussions when and where appropriate.

From the standpoint of gross EGI – looking at ethnic genetic interests without doing a full “balancing of the books” with respect to all the costs and benefits that determine the final outcome of adaptive fitness – then the presence of any genetically distinct minority group (no matter how small the genetic distance to the majority group) within a majoritarian state will exhibit parasitism, or at least amensalism, with respect to the majority group. The majority group is always harmed by the presence of the minority group with respect to gross EGI because the fixed carrying capacity of the territory reduces the final number of majority members that can fill that niche space, due to the presence of the minority group. This is akin to Yockey’s “Culture Parasitism” in which the parasitic group (in Yockey’s thesis, the outgroup is defined in terms of culture rather than genetics) reduces the numbers of the host High Culture majority group.  If the parasitic group benefits (as is usual) from living in the territory of the majority group that is parasitism; if there is no benefit, it is amensalism. The majority is harmed in all cases.  If the majority fights back, then we have competition, which can be harmful to both sides.

This conflict can end once assimilation of the minority group takes place; the minority becomes part of the majority so that symbiosis per se is not relevant.  However, the genetic costs to the majority of assimilating the minority is harmful to the EGI of the original majority stock (and is of course harmful to that of the minority stock). Once assimilation is complete however, we have a new people with its own set of genetic (and other) interests.

What about net EGI – the final, adaptive fitness outcome when the “balancing of the books” is complete – as well as proximate interests?  We can consider the various types of symbiosis.

Mutualism – both groups benefit.  For groups living in different polities it is possible – there can be alliances, cultural or economic exchanges, many possible types of mutualistic interactions, particularly between relatively closely related groups. For groups living in the same polity, this becomes more problematic.  One can envision two relatively similar groups supporting each other in competition with more alien competing outgroups – and this alliance become more tenable when the closely related allied groups are undergoing inter-marriage and assimilation. The various European ethnic groups in America are an example of this. Of course, this imposes costs on gross EGI; however, it may, dependent upon context, boost net EGI, if the benefits of the alliance – e.g., outcompeting the more genetically and culturally alien outgroups – outweigh the genetic costs in diluting a more concentrated EGI.

Commensalism – one group benefits while the other is neither harmed nor helped. Commensalism is common in individual or small scale human interactions.  Person A throws out some garbage, while person B finds that garbage useful and derives benefit from it. B is helped, while A is neither helped nor harmed.  It is difficult to think of examples – even when disregarding gross EGI – where larger scale human interactions within the same territory are truly commensal.  Perhaps, interactions between different separate nations can be commensal – the byproducts (even memetic) of one nation/people/ethny benefit another and the originator of the product is neither helped nor harmed.  But if both groups are residing in the same niche space, truly authentic examples of commensalism would be relatively rare.  Usually there are at least some benefits or harms, even if relatively marginal, to one group in contrast to the more obvious benefit enjoyed by another group. Unfortunately, many human interactions in the same niche space is zero sum game – parasitism, predation, and competition will be more common than commensalism. Given the relatively rarity of a true lack of effects on large groups, mutualism will be more common than commensalism as well.

Parasitism – one group benefits while harming the other group is harmed. The classic example is of Jews living in White nations, with the Jews benefiting and the Whites being harmed. This has been such a constant paradigm throughout history that a Wikipedia article has been made on it.  Of course, in some cases, Jewish parasitism descends into predation and/or if the afflicted host peoples fight back, competition.

Bowery’s ideas about extended phenotypes in human groups – as an extension of some of Dawkins’ work – are relevant here. One group controls the behavior of a second group so that the former benefits and the latter are harmed; here the second group acts as the extended phenotype of the first.  Jews controlling the societal milieu so as to modify White gentile behavior for Jewish benefit (and White harm) comes to mind; thus, White gentiles often become the extended phenotypes of Jews. The Whites are unable to control their own behavior and behave self-destructively to serve Jewish interests.

Are White HBDers the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians, particularly East Asians?  Were “White ethnic” members of the National Alliance the extended phenotype of William Pierce? 

Free-riding also comes into play here. When one group benefits from collective social goods to which they do not contribute, they benefit while the contributing groups are often harmed, since they carry the burden of contributing not only for themselves but for the non-contributing group. That is parasitism.

Predation – one group openly attacks and destroys the other.  For example, considering the role Jews play in America controlling sociopolitical systems to benefit themselves at the expense of Whites, that can be considered parasitism; however, considering Jews in the Soviet Union killing millions of Slavs, that is predation. The criminal attacks of Coloreds against Whites in multiracial nations is also predation, although of course parasitism is another key feature of Colored-White relations (typically, Coloreds benefit while Whites are harmed, although Negro slavery can be an example of the reverse). Race replacement, displacement, and White flight are examples of parasitism moving into predation, with undertones of competition when, rarely, Whites resist.

Neutralism – no effects for either group. Neutralism is possible between peoples living in separate nations, but for people living in the same territory, neutralism is extremely unlikely. There will be some types of positive and negative effects for either or both groups. There may be limited examples of very closely related groups living in the same polity that can have, in certain contexts and for certain periods of time, neutralistic relations, but that is rare.  More distant groups are unlikely to be neutralistic, even when disregarding gross EGI, because the differences between them will always manifest in proximate frictions that affect net EGI.

Amensalism – one group suffers no benefit or harm, but the other group is harmed.  Like commensalism, this is expected to be rare, since it is unlikely that the harm to one group in a polity would not benefit another. Perhaps there can be examples with relatively closely related groups.  If the groups are in separate nations it can be possible that the activities of one harms the other without benefiting the one causing the harm.  Symbiosis in which both groups are affected in some way would be more common than that in which one or both groups are not affected at all.

Competition – both groups are harmed. Competition is considered harmful to both sides, and often this is the case, at least until one side emerges victorious (if such occurs), after which the relationship may change (to, e.g., assimilation, parasitism, etc.).  

Both Yockey and MacDonald have written that the reaction against an intrusive group, even when necessary, can harm the group resisting.  If I recall, Yockey invoked the analogy of a fever, which, while helpful in combating the invasive pathogen, also harms, at least in the short run, the invaded host.

On the other hand, one can think of situations where, in the long term, competition could be beneficial to one or both sides even in the absence of a “final victory.”  Some would say one reason why Europe had so many advancements was the competition between different European nations – a completion that forced and fostered a constant “arms race” of competitive advantages – as opposed of a centralized massive Chinese state lacking in the dynamism of such constant internal turmoil. Of course, today, the level of competition is global, so the same dynamism could be provoked by a confederation of Europe vs. China.  

However, if one defines competition as something which is inherently harmful to both sides, then a situation in which competition is beneficial to one side but not the other would be, for example, parasitism and if beneficial to both sides, mutualism.  

The problem in putting predation into the completion category in that sense is that one could argue that predation benefits the predator (although there are risks in predation, sometimes the prey can kill the predator). One could argue that natural selection from predators improves the prey – mutualism?  It’s complicated.

It is of course possible for the types of symbiosis to change over time (e.g., from parasitism to predation). In heterosexual relationships, particularly marriage, the typical trajectory is that the relationship starts out as mutualism (both sides benefit) then transitions to commensalism (female benefits, male is neutral), and then ends up as parasitism (female benefits, male is harmed).  If the marriage ends up in divorce, female parasitism on the male can become extreme, even moving into predation. Note than even during the mutualism phase, the male can be considered as the extended phenotype of the female, with male behavior controlled through sexual exploitation. Also see this. The man is hormonally domesticated so as to be exploited by the woman in marriage.

Ultimately, the woman is to the man as the Jew is to the gentile.

What is observed in marriage can apply on a broader scale to relations between ethnies.

Behold the Parasite

And other news.

Read or listen to this.  Excerpts, emphasis added:

…we of European descent are dealing with a power — the Jewish power structure — as our primary opponent in our struggle to survive. And they showed us that this power structure is more than just a band of unpleasant invaders from the Middle East; more than just a gang of clever swindlers; far more than just a peculiar and odious religion; more than just a cohesive ethnic group and competitor, but an entirely different kind of being, though in human form; a highly evolved, specialized literal biological parasite with all the danger and horror that that implies.

Both the vampire and the biological parasite keep the victim alive for quite some time as he or she is being bled and eaten upon. Both the vampire and the biological parasite can pervert or change the personality or soul of the victim — the vampire’s victims can become vampires themselves; some parasites alter the brain structure of their hosts and change their behavior, sometimes even making them suicidal; and Jews use mass media and other means (perhaps even some means of which we are not yet aware) to change the perceptions, views, and behavior of their hosts as well.

Gee…sounds a lot like the HBD cult. Hey, Strom, when are you FINALLY going to openly and forcefully call out the HBD cult and its manipulation – its perversion – of racialist instincts to promote Jewish (and Asian) interests?

The German Leader and martyr Adolf Hitler, who now stands as one of the great spiritual leaders of all human history…


Shickedanz anticipates modern studies of parasitic ants, quoting studies which said: “‘We nowadays know of a whole series of permanent social parasites among the ants.” He explains that normally, ants would eject alien species invading their colonies. But some parasitic ants are able to send chemical signals to change the thinking of their hosts, and make them welcome the invaders and even make the invading queens their rulers, killing their own natural leaders. He describes this process as a “perversion of instinct of the primary species of ants,” and notes the parallels with the actions of the Jewish power structure within human societies. The author saw Zionism as an addition to the Jewish problem, not a solution. Zionism, he said, “has supplied a head to the parasite which so far has worked separately within the bodies of various peoples.”

Certainly we see parallels to our situation today.

The philosopher Alfred Rosenberg presented an advanced view of Jewish parasitism in his best-selling 1930 book, The Myth of the 20th Century. He said that he was not passing a moral judgement on Jewish actions, hoping they would “repent” or change their ways, but rather was noticing a biological phenomenon, the instinctual behavior of a certain kind of organism that could no more be changed or repented of than a leech’s need to suck blood or a mosquito’s need to suck blood: “This conception shall in the first instance not be taken as a moral judgment but as biological reality, exactly in the same way in which we speak of parasitic occurrences in the life of plants and animals. The sacullina pierces the rectum of the common crab, and gradually grows into it and sucks away its vital forces; the same process occurs when the Jew invades society through the open wounds of the people, consuming their creative forces and hastening the doom of society.”

Hmmm…like the open wounds of European-European conflict.  No wonder the HBDers are in alliance with the ethnonationalists and the Nordicists.  Gotta give an opening to Moshe, eh?  How’s Unz dong these days?  Hey, Strom, are you going to call out those “White racialists” who write for Unz, peddling Unzian Judeo-HBD?

Rosenberg says that the parasites, which mix to some degree with their hosts the better to blend in with them and not be “seen,” are not a normal race, but a “counter-race” for whom lying was a kind of “truth.” He said: “To express it in a paradox: the permanent lie is the ‘organic truth’ of the Jewish counter-race.” The Jews also represented, he said, the “parasitic transvaluation of creative life.”

Like HBD lies.

Just as micro-parasites rush to enter your bloodstream through any cuts on your body, so also, Rosenberg says, “whenever a wound has been torn open in the body of a nation, the Jewish demon always eats into the sore spot, and exploits, parasite-like, the weak hours of the Great of this world. Not like a conquering hero does he strive for domination; this parasite, obsessed by his vision, is driven by the urge to make the world his tributary. Not fighting, but sneaking; not serving true values, but exploiting debased values: thus runs the unalterable law of his constellation from which he can never escape — as long as he exists.”

HBD marches on.

Questions for Strom:

1. To what extent do you believe that Jewish parasitical behavior is intentional, planned, coordinated, and malicious, and to what extent do you believe it is just an instinctual urge, in some ways codified by ethnic culture (“Judaism”) that allows Jews to behave in a manner that gives the appearance of acting in a coordinated fashion? Are both possible – an underlying instinctual basis exists, but it is given a powerful thrust in a sociopolitical direction by the most ethnocentric of Jews in the Jewish leadership?

2. Are you familiar with Bowery’s thesis of Jewish virulence?  Would preventing horizontal transmission of Jews – such horizontal transmission being, e.g., their jumping from one nation they’ve ruined to another, not-yet-ruined, nation, as well as having both Israel and the diaspora to jump between  – reduce Jewish virulence by forcing them to live amongst their consequences of their behavior?  Could we select for less destructive Jews?  Should we?

3. Based on the above, what are your concrete objectives, policies, and outcomes to deal with this group you term “parasitical” and how would you accomplish this?  Do you believe there are “less virulent” Jews who are assimilable and relatively non-parasitical? What about them?  What about part-Jews?

4. If you believe all you write about Jews, why don’t you speak out, directly and forcefully, about Jewish infiltration of “the pro-White movement” – particularly the HBD cult?

Ah…one commentator understands it.

why do you think all these iq stadistics are so promoted in places like unz and are the only white nationalist that are tacitly permited ? because stupid whites make the dirty job of the jews promoting their supremacism while they prepare the terrain for a race caste sistem once everyone have been brainwhased like in brave new world novel where every class was brainwhased since birth to accept his position ,iq racial stats do the same job.

Ball in your court, Strom.

Some of the comments here are interesting, particularly those about Puritans and how the Puritan mindset, including that promoted by their descendants, promote Jewish and Colored interests.  Remember Lind’s American Tribes thesis of a Yankee-Jewish-Black alliance?

The wanna-be Andrew Frasers at Counter-Currents weep.

Meet Anthony Imperiale.

He was born on July 10, 1931 in Newark, New Jersey. He later served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. In the 1960s he opposed desegregation busing in the United States.

During the 1967 Newark riots, he advocated armed white self-defense, forming the volunteer North Ward First Aid Squad ostensibly to escort North Ward residents, most of whom were Italian-American, through racially troubled neighborhoods. The group was accused of vigilantism, and Governor Richard J. Hughes called Imperiale’s followers “Brownshirts”. In 1969, the group disbanded.

Afrowop Imperiale defended White interests, while ”Nordish” mick Hughes, a lace-curtain Irishman, opposed the “racists.”

Behold the newest Counter-Currents contributor:

I love the Amerindian people, and I am not really an American white nationalist who would keep them out of the USA or Canada; I would support that the Americas be returned to the Amerindian people, and Hispanic immigration to the USA is helping this process along. I would support investment in gene-editing technologies that could allow us to recreate authentic, pure Amerindian genomes and resurrect the real American people.

The world hates whites for the evil things whites have done in the past. I know the readers don’t like reading it; and I don’t like saying it, but this is the case.

I don’t like to say it anymore than anyone else, but whites have earned our hatred through our sins. Anti-white sentiment is not just jealousy, and it is not just looking down on us.

The pieces are starting to fit together, eh? If we assume that the HBD-ethnonationalist-Nordicist alliance is being manipulated behind the scenes by Judaized, anti-White, interests, none of this should come as a surprise. Keep on sending in the “D’Nations,” goys.

Shocker – Greg Johnson comes out in support of the high, high-IQ East Asian homosexual “traditionalist” Yukio Mishima.

Andrew Joyce – ball in your court.  Will you issue a riposte to Johnsonian flim-flam

Excerpts from such flim-flam and my own responses:

It would be all too easy to dismiss Mishima as a neurotic and a narcissist who engaged in politics as a kind of therapy. Right wing politics is crawling with such people…

Just look at Johnson and his crew of “writers” at Counter-Currents.

…(none of them with Mishima’s talents, unfortunately)…

And some of them with no talent whatsoever.

…and we would be better off without them. 

Pot meet kettle.

If a white equivalent of Mishima wished to write for Counter-Currents/North American New Right, we would welcome his work (as we would welcome translations of Mishima’s works!). But we would also keep him at arm’s length. Such people should be locked in a room with a computer and fed through a slot in the door. 

Is that how you feed James O’Meara?

They should not be put in positions of trust and responsibility.

Resign from your “leadership” position, Greg.

But Mishima is safely dead, and the meaning of his death cannot be measured in terms of crass political “deliverables.” Indeed, it is a repudiation of the whole calculus of interests that lies at the foundation of modern politics.

Huh? That comes from someone whose entire “political game” in Der Movement is appealing to the “crass” political (and economic) interests of other “movement leaders.”

Modern politics is based on the idea that a long and comfortable life is the highest value, to be purchased even at the price of our dignity.

Like writing for Unz?

Aristocratic politics is based on the idea that honor is the highest value, to be purchased even at the price of our lives.

How about the price of your “D’Nations?”

A natural slave is someone who is willing to give up his honor to save his life. Thus modern politics, which exalts the long and prosperous life as the highest value, is a form of spiritual slavery, even if the external controls are merely soft commercial and political incentives rather than chains and cages.

Sounds like folks like Johnson who write in a gilded cage, metaphorically “fed through a slot” by Unz.

Behold the Parasite

Jews and net EGI.

Of course, Jews are neither wasps nor fungi, nor do they stand in the same relationship to us as do the parasitic wasps and fungi to their hosts just mentioned. Jews are either a closely related species to us, or are a subspecies of the same species. In either case, as repulsive as are parasites, and as loathe as we may be to admit it, Jews are genetically quite similar to us and are in fact extensively cross-bred with us. Doesn’t this effectively rule out their being biological parasites upon us? 

No, not at all. In fact, it makes it even more likely. In 1909, an Italian entomologist named Carlo Emery discovered what is now known as Emery’s Rule. The rule states that that social parasites (that is, parasites of social species — and Homo sapiens is certainly a social species) tend to be parasites of species or genera to which they are closely related. Matt Johnston of the University of Arizona states that, “One explanation for the apparently close relationship between social parasites and their hosts is that in order to get past the hosts’ defenses, the parasite needs to have evolved communication systems similar to the host. This may be more likely if the two share a close evolutionary history.”

This is why I talk about the importance of net genetic interests (not that anyone listens). If all you care about are gross genetic interests, then you would simply measure the genetic distances involved, calculate the child equivalents, and conclude that since Jews are genetically quite similar to, and cross-bred with, Europeans, then their presence in Western societies does not exert much of an EGI cost at all. However, Jews are a highly specialized, evolved parasitic ethny with interests that are incompatible with that of Europeans, and as such Jewish behavior exerts a significant fitness cost on Europeans, so that the net effect on European EGI is enormous. Therefore, net EGI takes into account all factors that affect the genetic interests of an ethny, and provides a final tally of the outcome. If Jews promote mass alien immigration, desegregation, miscegenation, and overall societal degeneration (that imposes severe costs on, among other things, family stability and reproductive success), then their presence is extremely destructive to host EGI regardless of what the relative genetic distances are between Jews and White Gentiles. Further, if Jews consider themselves a different group than are White Gentiles, and pursue a group evolutionary strategy of their own, they would not care that their behavior damages the interests of an ethny relatively genetically similar to their own. Of course, Identity is based upon more than just genetic distances, and issues of Identity, by influencing behavior, directly affect genetic interests.