Great video, very good analysis of the flaws of Peterson's major arguments. That being said, what should be done is to use his efforts of gathering an audience of interested white men to take them towards the right path.
It is very obvious that the JP audience is infatuated with his persona as intellectual mystic, and his affable affect combined with that makes the direct refutation on Peterson himself not the right way to address them. Automatic defenses will crop up to defend the man they believe "saved them" from meaninglessness. He has however developed his audience by selecting for certain characteristics that allow a means of bypassing the iron trap of psychological reactance.
They are essentially proto-Zig Forumsacks, but get stuck in the Self-Improvement cycle rather than fully developing. To reach them one must provide arguments not against Peterson himself necessarily but his ideas, and then present the full vision which Peterson only feeds to them in contaminated drips. This is how to approach them:
This is to both encourage them to listen and, later, to challenge Peterson's own hypocrisy on that matter in the Faith Goldy incident where he betrayed this principle.
His audience craves an intellectual rebuke of their enemies and support for noble ideas. Approach with honest praise of what Peterson gets right to lower their guard and to build them up from Peterson's limited and/or twisted versions of those points.
Peterson's act depends on a mystic philosopher angle, right down to the gestures he uses and the modest affect he puts on. Peterson's knowledge of mythology is however very limited to only a few cases where he can fit in his notions of radical individualism, and he has unwittingly primed his audience to like myths and legends about heroes. Turns out most mythologies emphasize the importance of one's people and being a hero who relies on them and protects them, and tragic stories about those who abandon those principles. A whole thread should be dedicated to finding potent examples of these myths.
Popularly termed the "Faustian Spirit", it's the enterprising, courageous, and heroic union of white men striving against all odds towards adventure, beauty, discovery, mastery, and victory. Contrast this against lonely and retiring isolated self-improvement and non-union with one's people that Peterson encourages once you get the sparkle in their eyes.
The model example for this is how a man claimed to be a Jew (to get down Peterson's and his audience's guards), praised Solzhenitsyn, and then asked about 200 Years Together and the JQ. If approached in a friendly, non-aggressive manner like this, these kinds of questions that Peterson cannot answer without strategic consideration or rebuking the asker will stick in the minds of his audience more powerfully given that Peterson builds up their respect for authors who he knows are too dense for the average man to research.
Above all else, it is very important that when approaching Peterson and his audience that one is very respectful and polite in all these efforts. To be aggressive will allow Peterson to rebuke you and for his audience to shut out your words. While on Zig Forums it is par for the course to use the Juden Peterstein line of dialogue, that is a threat to the audience members who don't yet realize Peterson is withholding them from the proper conclusion to their search for truth. It's not effective to attack Peterson directly but to augment his good arguments towards the proper path and use the momentum Peterson already captures to get people moving beyond his limited and flawed ideology. Then, once they realize the limitation of Peterson's teachings, they can learn what Peterson is all about without fear of them relapsing.
Attached: elem-hist-greek-democracy-18d681c4.jpg (885x498, 589.2K)