One for the Last Fans of Jordan Peterson By James Reed

     The documentary “Jordan Peterson Dismantled,” is linked below. The basic argument is, that although Peterson did early good work attacking feminism, it was not particularly original. What Peterson has done though in more recent times, is to attack nationalism from the perspective of a self-focussed individualism, one of the very things which has put the West in its present precarious position:

“A documentary exposing Jordan Peterson's agenda to subvert and destroy the rising political right wing, and neutralize European nationalism. This video completely exposes Peterson's anti-White agenda and his strategy for implementing it. Any Peterson fans who are not beyond saving will be deprogrammed by watching this video. Jordan Peterson's primary goal is to neutralize the political right and White identity. He does not care about the Marxist take over of our nations, in fact he was hired by the United Nations to help usher it along. Peterson's only reason for stepping into the limelight was because he saw a massive right-wing backlash fomenting, and realized it was going to destroy the left. His job is to implement "plan B", to steer the rising tide of nationalism into an impotent cul-de-sac of centrist individualism, giving our enemies just enough time to tip the demographic balance of our countries so that our destruction is sealed. Peterson is explicitly targeting young White males for indoctrination with an insidious political ideology he calls radical individualism. He has created a pseudo-religion self-help cult; he is delivering his ideology to the disaffected youth by combining it with a self-help regimen wrapped in empty religious metaphor. While our enemies are working tirelessly to destroy our nations in a ruthlessly calculated and organized fashion, Jordan Peterson is brainwashing a generation of young White men to be atomized individuals who perceive group cooperation based on ethnic identity and nationality as the height of evil. And in the process of doing so, Peterson and his friends are making untold millions of dollars.”

     See if you agree, after following the numerous links that are contained below the video in the comments section.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXYuqrO8LLo

     What is wrong with “individualism”? Normally nothing, but in times where competing and hostile forces use association and cooperation to their advantage, Western European people will come out second best, or not come out at all. We need to remember some basic sociobiology, neatly summed up here by Sheikh Muhammad Kashaf Iqbal, a writer I know nothing about, but whom I feel good in citing on this issue:
  https://www.quora.com/Do-humans-rule-the-world

“The real difference between us and other animals is on the collective level. Humans control the world because we are the only animal that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers. Ants and bees can also work together in large numbers, but they do so in a very rigid way. If a beehive is facing a new threat or a new opportunity, the bees cannot reinvent their social system overnight in order to cope better. They cannot, for example, execute the queen and establish a republic. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of intimately known individuals. Among wolves and chimps, cooperation is based on personal acquaintance. If I am a chimp and I want to cooperate with you, I must know you personally: What kind of chimp are you? Are you a nice chimp? Are you an evil chimp? How can I cooperate with you if I don’t know you?

Only Homo sapiens can cooperate in extremely flexible ways with countless numbers of strangers. One-on-one or ten-on-ten, chimpanzees may be better than us. But pit 1,000 Sapiens against 1,000 chimps, and the Sapiens will win easily, for the simple reason that 1,000 chimps can never cooperate effectively. Put 100,000 chimps in Wall Street or Yankee Stadium, and you’ll get chaos. Put 100,000 humans there, and you’ll get trade networks and sports contests. Cooperation is not always nice, of course. All the terrible things humans have been doing throughout history are also the product of mass cooperation. Prisons, slaughterhouses and concentration camps are also systems of mass cooperation. Chimpanzees don’t have prisons, slaughterhouses or concentration camps. Yet how come humans alone of all the animals are capable of cooperating flexibly in large numbers, be it in order to play, to trade or to slaughter? The answer is our imagination. We can cooperate with numerous strangers because we can invent fictional stories, spread them around, and convince millions of strangers to believe in them. As long as everybody believes in the same fictions, we all obey the same laws, and can thereby cooperate effectively.

This is something only humans can do. You can never convince a chimpanzee to give you a banana by promising that after he dies, he will go to Chimpanzee Heaven and there receive countless bananas for his good deeds. No chimp will ever believe such a story. Only humans believe such stories. This is why we rule the world, whereas chimps are locked up in zoos and research laboratories. It is relatively easy to accept that religious networks of cooperation are based on fictional stories. People build a cathedral together or go on crusade together because they believe the same stories about God and Heaven. But the same is true of all other types of large-scale human cooperation. Take for example our legal systems. Today, most legal systems are based on a belief in human rights. But human rights are a fiction, just like God and Heaven. In reality, humans have no rights, just as chimps or wolves have no rights. Cut open a human, and you won’t find there any rights. The only place where human rights exist is in the stories we invent and tell one another. Human rights may be a very attractive story, but it is only a story.

The same mechanism is at work in politics. Like gods and human rights, nations are fictions. A mountain is something real. You can see it, touch it, smell it. But the United States or Israel are not a physical reality. You cannot see them, touch them or smell them. They are just stories that humans invented and then became extremely attached to. It is the same with economic networks of cooperation. Take a dollar bill, for example. It has no value in itself. You cannot eat it, drink it or wear it. But now come along some master storytellers like the Chair of the Federal Reserve and the President of the United States, and convince us to believe that this green piece of paper is worth five bananas. As long as millions of people believe this story, that green piece of paper really is worth five bananas. I can now go to the supermarket, hand a worthless piece of paper to a complete stranger whom I have never met before, and get real bananas in return. Try doing that with a chimpanzee.

Indeed, money is probably the most successful fiction ever invented by humans. Not all people believe in God, or in human rights, or in the United States of America. But everybody believes in money, and everybody believes in the dollar bill. Even Osama bin Laden. He hated American religion, American politics and American culture — but he was quite fond of American dollars. He had no objection to that story. To conclude, whereas all other animals live in an objective world of rivers, trees and lions, we humans live in dual world. Yes, there are rivers, trees and lions in our world. But on top of that objective reality, we have constructed a second layer of make-believe reality, comprising fictional entities such as the European Union, God, the dollar and human rights. And as time passes, these fictional entities have become ever more powerful, so that today they are the most powerful forces in the world. The very survival of trees, rivers and animals now depends on the wishes and decisions of fictional entities such as the United States and the World Bank — entities that exist only in our own imagination.”

     Well, apart from the last bit, that the UN exists only in our imagination, and a horrible imagination that would be, I mostly agree. A good critique of human rights, too. As has been said, we are either going to hang individually, or we hang together.