Parasitism Elicits Instinctive Disgust

atypical_appearanceSix common types of disgust that protect us from disease revealed for the first time:

Disgust has long been recognised as an emotion which evolved to help our ancestors avoid infection, but now researchers have been able to show the human disgust system is likely to be structured around the people, practices and objects that pose disease risk.

This is the first time researchers have used the perspective of disease to break the emotion of disgust into its component parts, and identify six common categories triggering disgust – the others being skin conditions such as having lesions or boils, food that is rotting or has gone off and having an atypical appearance.

Disgust triggered by an atypical appearance? OYYYY VEEEEYYYYYY.

The results confirm the ‘parasite avoidance theory’, in which disgust evolved in animals, encouraging them to adopt behaviours to reduce the risk of infection. This behaviour is replicated in humans where disgust signals us to act in specific ways, which minimise the risk of catching diseases.

Professor Val Curtis, senior author at LSHTM said: “Although we knew the emotion of disgust was good for us, here we’ve been able to build on that, showing that disgust is structured, recognising and responding to infection threats to protect us.

“This type of disease avoidance behaviour is increasingly evident in animals, and so leads us to believe it is evolutionarily very ancient.

From the paper, The structure and function of pathogen disgust:

It is unlikely to be a coincidence that many of the stimuli that elicit the emotion of disgust in humans are also implicated in the transmission of infectious disease [1–3]. Human excreta, for example, are both a major source of pathogenic viruses, bacteria and helminths and an important elicitor of disgust.

Scatology is a major theme of jew comedy, making a mockery of normal, disease-resistant behavior.

Even if only subconscious, wariness and resistance to pathology and parasites is the biological default. This is not to say that subversion of this norm, a shift in revulsion, cannot be engineered – especially if a hyper-conscious parasite controls the mass media and broadcasts a toxic narrative relentlessly psychopathologizing healthy behavior and celebrating pathological behavior.

Yet instincts persist. Disgust is the common response when Whites hear Barbara Spectre boldly jewsplain how her tribe’s White-obliterating agenda must succeed, or “Europe will not survive”. Jonah Goldberg promotes the same political AIDS, toward the same end, by less in-your-face means. Whereas Spectre misidentifies the disease as cure, excusing her tribe by crediting them, Goldberg misdiagnoses the immune response as “suicide”, excusing his tribe by de-jewing the story.

11 thoughts on “Parasitism Elicits Instinctive Disgust”

  1. Scatology is a major theme of jew comedy,

    The j-homo infatuation with oral-anal sex.
    Grand rabbis foretelling the future by examining their feces.
    Freud’s crackpot theories on oral, anal , genital fixation.
    Is their a common thread here ?

  2. Heh, great opening picture. On that same note, it’s one of those sad/funny things how little gentiles understand that their belovedly loathed movie and novel villains are loathed because of Jewish characteristics. The most common being probably the nasty curved nose, but prevalent also are the weird religious dude who hates homos (Torah), the single perve who only likes hoarding gold, and other typical evil villain stuff that was actually Jewish. It was so clever how they used our invention of moving pictures to raise so many of us to think that the traditionally bad dude was a gentile, sort of like they did with the popular image of traders in African slaves. Our “parasite” response has been skewed by their infotainment businesses to cause us to hate ourselves rather than them.

  3. Fuck these people. Great work on the site and free speech. I would never be willing to give up free speech. That would be really disgusting.

  4. The, shall we say, coward faggots in Europe have suggested that Europeoids would readily accept societies that formalized a lack of free speech. I’d like to believe there is some quality difference in America, but I think the actuality of the way our need for jobs from Jewbank interacts with our ability to actually speak freely in public shows that America doesn’t have it, either.

    Quite seriously, we haven’t had effective free speech for centuries, if then. One of the things their Christianity did early on was use not formal prosecutions, but informal shunning, to repress free speech–and Europeoids fell for it, and shunned people who spoke disbelievingly about the Risen Rabbi, and we’re living those effects now.

  5. Speech and shunning are social tools. They become weapons when coopted, redirected, and amplified by enemies.

  6. Yeah, I agree, I just think if we come to a point where people have to fear being shunned or fired for claiming white people have a right to exist things are already over. That is why I don’t ever think about supremacy because I think having to prove that to justify your existence is ridiculous. I’m with Norvin Hobbs on this and I like embracing the victim narrative because it’s true. If people are getting fired for saying white people should exist we are certainly being victimized. I’m pretty nervous about a U.K. situation where it’s “hate” to even point out that white girls are being groomed. Even on the Internet, anonymously. I think to ever cede that ground would be a fatal blow and that’s why I post here. I know I’m probably never going to explore an idea that Tan hasn’t already. I just like supporting his work.

  7. “Groomed”, that’s a media generated con- word, they are being SLAVED. Use real words.

  8. I know I’m probably never going to explore an idea that Tan hasn’t already.

    Don’t sell yourself short.

  9. Fred W
    After going back and listening to all of the archives of Tan I was just blown away at how much he’s explored this problem. It was really mind blowing. Each time I read a Revilo Oliver book or Macdonald or the Germans I thought I finally understood the conflict in its entirety. Every question I ever thought about, I realized Tan explored. He has an ability to really cut through bullshit. I hope his work is archived somewhere because he’s been like a one man wrecking crew. I used to be a wrestler and he put things into terms I could really understand. A conflict between two opponents that will end when one side taps out. I understand why he doesn’t even like debating. It’s as useless as debating in a fist fight. While Macdonald debates Cofnas, whites are on the ropes getting pummeled. In wrestling those tactics are called stalling and result in point deductions and then forfeiting the match.

  10. After going back and listening to all of the archives of Tan I was just blown away at how much he’s explored this problem.

    Yes, and I hope that someone can do a gloss of his articles, then generate a book, going from simple newb concepts to detail. His stuff can save a person decades of digging.

    Jan Lamprecht also has strong insights. His shows are good, especially the most recent

Comments are closed.