I don't think I've lumped them together in quite the way you've read it. What I meant by this comment is that each of these people has cultivated a huge following in young men in particular because their message is resonating in a way that it hasn't before.

Those messages are different. I have a lot of time for Peterson, though I prefer his early psychological analysis to his religious stuff. Rogan seems to genuinely have varied guests and everyone seems to believe he's a threat to society, but I don't. I came out to defend him here. https://medium.com/lucid-nightmare/rogan-vs-young-mitchell-feat-the-whingor-markles-148428ee9c83

As for Tate, I think he's looked at both of those men and put together an ersatz version of something between the two that is neither intellectually curious nor even handed. In short, I think he's a tool. But he's a heavily monetised tool.

My point here wasn't to say that these people are all the same - but that they have somehow managed to tap into a similar feeling in the demos. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way that society is speaking to young men or, more accurately, some of the changes we have engendered in society (for good reasons) have unintended consequences. Both parents working might be an example of this.... it may be morally dubious to expect Mum to be at home with the kids, but perhaps there's something happening in houses where nobody is home with the kids and they're at daycare. It needs more examination and it needs more understanding. Peterson and Rogan may have some of the answers - Tate does not.

Thanks for dropping by and commenting, is much appreciated. Although I am an economic leftist, I do try and consider the more right wing and Conservative views. :o)