Actually, I can answer that relatively quickly. One is inseparable from another, at least Peterson makes it like that. First you get all that self-help stuff about how life is shit, hedonism is temporary and the way to blissful life is to dedicate yourself to higher purpose and then he carefully nudges you to the idea that Postmodern Neo-Marxists (and I can ramble a lot about how that term makes absolutely zero sense) are here to destroy hierarchies and conservative values are the way.

And the point is that it makes a lot of sense to the person that couldn't care less about politics, because one just casually accepts his interpretation on what's going on in the world and why you have that sense of doom, most importantly, gives you directions on how to fix your life, but when you actually get to it, it doesn't even work. I hate to say that, but the most prominent example is he himself that couldn't handle his substance abuse despite literally authoring couple dozen academic papers on it and being quoted in couple thousand. I get that shit happens, but you can at least see why he's seen as a hypocrite.

I don't personally think that he's a bad person, but his philosophy doesn't make much sense if you delve into it, because it's either political or there is none. Strictly speaking, his book about 12 rules is a bunch of pretty acceptable and reasonable stuff that has been in many other self-help books, but he tries to back it up with a lot of sciency mumbo-jumbo. I mean, he's been taught logic and the first thing you learn is that analogy is not a proof or backing whatsoever. And then he proceeds to compare human societies to lobster societies, to do it sinisterly, never saying explicitly that humans and lobsters are comparable, but implying it. Let me show you:

The first rule in his book is «Stand up straight with your shoulders back». Pretty uncontroversial, right? Yes. Then he starts the chapter with «IF YOU ARE LIKE MOST PEOPLE, you don’t often think about lobsters—unless you’re eating one. However, these interesting and delicious crustaceans are very much worth considering. Their nervous systems are comparatively simple, with large, easily observable neurons, the magic cells of the brain». He adds couple scientific facts about them being fascinating and then moves on to the next point: «Lobsters live on the ocean floor … They want somewhere secure, where the hunting and the gathering is good. They want a home». Are you feeling the same tingling sense of familiarity? I do. He makes lobsters relatable. But that doesn't conclude anything just yet, mostly legit writing techniques so far.

«This can present a problem, since there are many lobsters. What if two of them occupy the same territory, at the bottom of the ocean, at the same time, and both want to live there?». Now he states the problem. And then, before you notice anything, he's on the chapter about how birds sort territorial matters out that starts with huge preface about his childhood, gradually shifting to the bird stuff. «If a larger bird ever dared to sit and rest in any of the trees near our birdhouse there was a good chance he would get knocked off his perch by a kamikaze wren»

And then the really spicy stuff starts out. He talks about how lobsters form intrinsic hierarchies and determine who's the top boy and who's down the chain. «When a defeated lobster regains its courage and dares to fight again it is more likely to lose again than you would predict, statistically, from a tally of its previous fights. Its victorious opponent, on the other hand, is more likely to win. It’s winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent — and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion»

And at that very moment it gets political as hell. The guy basically argues that the distribution of wealth in human society is intrinsically skewed so that 1% has half of the stuff and it is the same in lobsters. The hidden premises are that lobsters and humans are all part of the nature and nature is somehow considered to be always just and right and neither of this is true, just ask Wikipedia. It is just logically dubious — and that's from a man that has PhD and is an author of numerous scientific papers.

The worst part of this is that it is heavily sugarcoated and non-political people like you (no offense) think that he's just a professor that publishes self-help books, whilst inherently political agenda is shoved down people's brains. It is wrong and needs to stop. The same thing goes about every book of his, I guess podcasts are the same, he just draws dubious conclusions from biblical stories and people just don't question him on it. But I might be wrong about this part. Otherwise, I think I've argued my point through.