A case against Jordan Peterson's disgust for man's disgust mechanism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&feature=youtu.be&t=18m

Jordan Peterson's argument (tl;dr): "The disgust mechanism is an evolutionary response to disease, and therefore in the modern world irrelevant" (his idea in my words. I do not feel like transcribing his verbiage at the moment.) Perhaps it is true that the disgust mechanism is a defense mechanism against spreading disease among populations, and perhaps in pre-vaccination times this was extremely useful, but perhaps not so useful today. Peterson fails to recognize that the defense mechanism which kept mankind divided within their own relatively insular tribes, kingdoms, and nations, also gave way to biological differentiation over time, which, as we are taught by the current Human Biological Diversity and race realist circles, can produce disastrous consequences when placed in the same petri dish- with some populations genetically predisposed to produce competitive and contradictory ways of life that result in social strife, conflict, and deflation of trust as we see in the modern West today being colonized by the Third World. Imagine if all Europeans lacked the disgust mechanism of the nationalists and all voted Labor. In no time Europe would become a giant rape party for the lowest, savage, and intellectually pitiful Muslim Africans and Arabs. Europe would be destroyed. In fact it already is. That disgust mechanism at least gives Europe a fighting shot. In this case the disgust mechanism is a self-perpetuating fact of life. Disease -> Disgust -> isolation -> biological differentiation -> behavioral divergence -> divergent social organization -> disgust -> (repeat)

The problem with classical liberals' obsession with reductio ad hitlerum

Nothing Hayek says about the "socialist roots of national socialism" is particularly wrong (well... it is worth noting that Hitler's regime privatized much of the German economy left behind by the social democratic (heh) Weimar Republic, but I'll concede they were still socialists in the pre-Marxist sense of the word), however my contempt lies with his mimics, the likes of Jonah Goldberg, Fox News, and Turningpoint USA, who ape his thoroughly researched work with mute platitudes about how "Democrats are the real Hitler" and "liberal fascism", or D'nesh D'Souza who thinks the cackling whore Hillary Clinton is literally no different than a national hero and pioneer like Andrew Jackson, just because they both carry a capital D by their names.

The problem here, apart from taxonomic ignorance between classical socialism and Marxist socialism, is a question of social priorities. Those on what many may call the "European Right", "far right", "fascists", "Nazis", or "Alt Right" may take for granted the blunders of [economic] authoritarianism, however they do share one thing in common with true conservatives: the importance of tradition, community, religion, homogeneity (interpret that as you may), and the nuclear family. They are unlike the open border libertarian who cries for hours alongside his transgendered dope-smoking pedophile "brothers and sisters" (oops, don't misgender them) about how importing millions of anti-libertarian rent-seeking unskilled voters into our democracy is good for libertarianism.

This leads to my other concern: what the Alt Right understands that conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals seem to consciously refuse is that large groups of people collectively working together toward a common interest will always beat those who do not. Hence why, for pragmatic purposes what we call "identity politics" is not only optimal, but inevitable. "Unite the clans!" is the only way forward.

Of course individual liberty is right and necessary for a civilized society, but no man can be free if he does not have the might of his fellow free folk to guarantee that freedom from the barbarian hordes and schemers trying to strip it from him. It is therefore important to differentiate the difference between "hoc unitum stabit" and groupthink, which many conservatives and libertarians fail to do, and why Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are the only conservatives alive worthy of the title.

On another note: I am in entire agreement with the Left, and opposed to the likes of Milo who say "You should be able to do and say anything", when the Left says "You can't joke about that". Now of course you can, but their instincts are right. Ridiculing everything only ends in nihilism. There should be taboos. Shaming should be an instrument of healthy society. There are some jokes that should be unacceptable. Lena Dunham, I'm not going to attack you or do anything illegal. What I will do is this: you come up and attack me and now I'm scared for my safety, I'm going to have to protect my life.

An oven worthy tweet from JBP while I'm at it: