I think it’s safe to say that if Millennial women were involved in Bolshevism, the Czar would still be in power. Every transformative figure would be accused of rape and the status quo would be maintained.
Tom's got his thing. His style is antiquated, for better or worse. He has modeled both himself and his language after the American Founders to a significant extent, it seems. In doing so, he aims for a seriousness and even an oratorical, poetic quality. I can understand the appeal, and I'm not critical of it. I don't consider him affected in an insincere way or merely LARPing. Frankly, he strikes me as an idealist: intelligent and honest. He sees his movement as having historical significance, and I hope it does attain that significance, if it hasn't already.
I know some criticize him for not being as explicit as he might be, but I understand the decision and the logic behind it, and I'm in favor of different approaches. I broadly agree with the substance of what he says, though I think the appeal of his style may be niche and somewhat limited. I've written and narrated a few poems in an antiquated style myself. They have their appreciators, but I accept that their appeal is also limited. Such is the nature of certain forms of art, which have goals different from those of direct political activism.
Fuentes' style, by contrast—contemporary, slick, vulgar, and witty—appears to have broader appeal and resonates more strongly with contemporary audiences, however much one might criticize him for one thing or another. And yes, the contexts are not identical, so approaches to communication would inevitably differ, at least to some extent.