I'm not really familiar with Benjamin, frankly. Joe Rogan is a pretty firm leftist, just like Peterson is. I wouldn't expect a plethora of their ideas to mesh with mine. Still, this doesn't disqualify their wide reach and ability to help with things like what I've mentioned. I think you're arguing this unfairly. I wouldn't expect either of them to have some kind of 90% agreeance rating with my preferences. Maybe you're confused. I'm not saying they're perfect, ideal conservatives that have few faults. I'm just being realistic and taking a pragmatic approach with analysis of their engagement and ways in which it can be fruitful. This doesn't mean everything they'll say is helpful, that they have otherwise perfect values that emanate through all jokes told by Rogan or family values displayed tangentially through Peterson's family members. You're comparing Benjamin and Carlson to Rogan and Peterson based on political outlooks. I'm saying they're comparative in that they capture wide-ranging audiences that aren't necessarily confined to the political paradigm you've entertained. I know they aren't conservatives. Clearly a lot of what I think doesn't align with them in terms of political values, but that's not what I find pragmatically contributive; I find their ability to break the mold, appeal to the mean and escort their attention to concepts that are conducive to them slipping from the fence, pushing them more toward a curious mindset in Rogan's case, which can help undo some of the programming and a more spiritually enlightened, coherent demeanor that's beneficial to the collective consciousness as it relates to modern thinking and self-governance in Peterson's case. I think now I understand your problem with Peterson and Rogan. They don't adhere to the false-dichotomy of politics and identify with your in-group preference. I both acknowledge this distinction and disregard it. I think this issue is what's confining your ability to see the positive aspects in both men and how they affect their audience. They aren't beneficial because they are stark conservatives who uphold traditional values and progress a return to features that we'd all prefer, growing tired of bullshit "Lefitism". They're beneficial because they help undo demoralization like with Peterson's analysis of Biblical Allegory, instilling a more spiritual focus or, in normie words, "Religious Ideals" and also because they help question Pharma, stoke questions about space and "conspiracy theories" and help refocus our attention on Masculinity, Nutrition (and what's wrong with it) and genuine history (think about Hancock and Carlson being some of Rogan's more fascinating guests - who help elucidate more valuable historical perspectives, which you might be interested to know leads us to illuminate the Loxist themes emanating from "Academia" and therefore enlighten young men about what their ancestors *really* were, like Aryan Egyptians, who definitely weren't niggers). Carlson denies anything out of the ordinary having happened with 9/11, by the way. He's also connected to the intelligence apparatus. I could say more about this too, but, like Rogan or Peterson, I find him relatively helpful, so I don't see a reason to offer "enemies" ammunition at this stage.