Here we see the main problem with Katherine Dee ’s idea of an emerging “post-right” scene. Namely, the issue remains that these post-right figures share very little in common with each other politically or ideologically, other than their beefs with the so called “dissident right”. Hanania and Parvini are almost polar opposites, especially on the topic of Zionism. Nick Fuentes and Pedro Gonzalez have almost nothing in common other than their distaste for Trump and their Hispanic last names.

Furthermore, the post-right objections are largely aesthetic. They concern “stale vibes” and “slop”, which unfortunately, are not a quality of the right wing but rather just a natural function of being online and (somewhat) popular. Inevitably, the same problems emerge every time a “post-right” scene starts to congeal, which probably what leads to the “post-right crashout” phenomenon people regularly notice.

What keeps the “dissident right” relevant ultimately is not vibes or good social media feelings, but its interest in solving actual perennial problems in modernity and modern ideology. Solve those real problems (or show they are irrelevant) and the “dissident right” goes away, otherwise you guys are stuck with us, stale vibes and all.

Not that we won’t repeat this cycle again next year. For newcomers, I wrote an essay outlining this conflict called “The Dissident Right and its discontents” back in 2024. Then Librarian of Celaeno wrote a similar article with an identical title last year. This cycle has persisted for an eternity in online time and will continue for eternity, a digital samsara. But people aren’t actually upset about a specific movement or ideas, they are just frustrated with how the internet works and how it relates to real problems.