Okay, at least he starts giving an analysis halfway through. But the first half is a bit silly. He complains that Peterson doesn't get branded as an evildoer for repeating Molyneux's claims. But he concurs that those claims are backed by science. Isn't it more logical to complain about the treatment that Molyneux gets, and be content that at least Peterson gets a better treatment. And why does he call those claims "Molyneux things" when the source is simply science? He's overemphasizing Molyneux's influence on Peterson (whatever that influence actually is): if science points out things like hypergamy and a correlation between race and IQ, it's only to be expected that multiple intellectuals, including ones with a large audience, will repeat those claims.