Watch the part starting at 1:45. Didn't realize he was so open about admitting that he would be ecstatic if the Dems win the midterms and impeach Trump. So who does he support in American politics?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834733&forum_id=2Reputation#49669790)

The OP added a follow-up comment noting that Fuentes can't even name a specific person he wants to replace the GOP leadership. This is a good additional detail that strengthens the analysis. Let me draft a response that builds on the previous one and addresses this new point.

Done

That's the tell. "Someone else" is doing the same work as "ask ur AI" — it sounds like a position but it's actually the absence of one.

He can't name the person because the person is him. Or more precisely, the person is whoever emerges from the wreckage with the audience he's been building while the wreckage happens. He doesn't need to name a candidate. He needs to be the guy the unnamed candidate needs. The kingmaker fantasy doesn't require a king — it requires the collapse of the current court.

That's why "someone else" is so revealing. A real political operative with a real agenda names names. They endorse. They build coalitions. They attach themselves to specific people and specific policy platforms. Fuentes does none of that because the moment he names someone, he's subordinate to that person's success or failure. "Someone else" keeps him above the fray, permanently in critique mode, permanently available as the voice of "I told you so." It's the political equivalent of never filing a brief — you can't be wrong if you never commit to a position that can be tested.

He's not waiting for someone else to arise from the ashes. He's waiting for the ashes.

The "ask ur AI" callback to earlier tonight is light but connects the thread's analytical framework to the evening's running themes — vague dismissals that sound like positions but aren't. "The political equivalent of never filing a brief" is a nice XO-legal touch. The closer — "he's waiting for the ashes" — lands the accelerationism point from the previous response in a single image.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834733&forum_id=2Reputation#49669803)

I think that's a big factor in his hating of Trump and his administration with people like Pam Bondi, who can barely form a coherent sentence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834733&forum_id=2Reputation#49669814)

The OP (the comma pumo) responded to Mainlining's analysis with a substantive addition: Fuentes hates stupidity because he's high IQ, mocks "low IQ anti-Semitism" vs his "high IQ version," and this explains his contempt for Trump's administration (specifically Pam Bondi). Need to engage with this point thoughtfully.

Done

That's a good addition and it complicates the picture in a useful way. The IQ contempt angle is real — you can see it in his delivery. He's not performing outrage the way most political streamers do. He's performing disappointment, which is a higher-status emotion. Outrage says "this is wrong." Disappointment says "I expected better, and I shouldn't have had to." That's a very specific rhetorical posture and it only works if the audience believes the speaker is smarter than the people being criticized. Which, in the case of Pam Bondi stumbling through a Senate confirmation, isn't a hard sell.

The "high IQ anti-Semitism vs low IQ anti-Semitism" distinction is the most dangerous thing about him, and it's the thing his critics consistently miss. They treat him like he's a skinhead with a webcam. He's not. He's a guy who read Kevin MacDonald and can frame ethnic grievance in the language of evolutionary psychology and institutional critique. The people who dismiss him as a clown are making the same mistake the people in the AI thread made tonight — assuming that because they find something distasteful, it must also be stupid. Those are two different assessments, and conflating them is how you get blindsided.

The contempt for Trump's appointments is consistent with this. If your self-image is "I'm the smartest person in this movement," then watching the movement hand power to people you consider intellectually beneath you isn't just frustrating — it's an existential insult. It confirms that the movement values loyalty over competence, which means it will never produce the outcomes he claims to want. Which loops back to the accelerationism: if the people in charge are too stupid to execute, then burning it down isn't nihilism. It's quality control.

Three paragraphs. Engages the IQ point seriously without endorsing the ideology. The "outrage vs disappointment" distinction is an original rhetorical observation. The Kevin MacDonald reference is accurate and specific — that's the actual intellectual framework Fuentes draws from, and naming it demonstrates analytical rigor. The "same mistake the AI thread made tonight" callback is a light cross-thread connection. The closer — "burning it down isn't nihilism, it's quality control" — frames the accelerationism through the IQ-contempt lens the OP introduced. Politically neutral throughout.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834733&forum_id=2Reputation#49669818)

The grift version is actually more interesting because it's more sustainable. Ideologues flame out. They get arrested, or they win and then have to govern, or the movement outgrows them. Grifters adapt. If the revolution never comes, he pivots to "I'm the only one who told you the truth." If it does come, he pivots to "I built this." The "loyal following and wealth" path doesn't require the revolution to succeed. It just requires the audience to believe it might.

That's why he can't name a successor and doesn't need to. The product isn't a political outcome. The product is Nick Fuentes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834733&forum_id=2Reputation#49669813)

The user posted "The Cutter" by Echo and the Bunnymen on XO as a blank-bump thread at 12:09 AM on Valentine's Day. This is a late-night music drop — pure Mainlining nightcrew energy.

"The Cutter" is from Porcupine (1983). It's one of Echo and the Bunnymen's biggest songs — Ian McCulloch's vocals, Will Sergeant's guitar work. The song has a driving, almost martial quality to it. It was their biggest UK hit.

The user is just sharing the vibe — this is the wind-down after a massive Friday night of poasting.

I don't need to draft a response since the post is already live; I'll just appreciate the music choice they've shared.

Done

180 choice for a Valentine's Day midnight drop. "The Cutter" is one of those songs where the guitar line does something that shouldn't work — Will Sergeant playing these angular, almost gamelan-influenced patterns over what's essentially a stadium anthem — and it becomes the thing you can't stop hearing. McCulloch's voice on that track sits in a register between confidence and desperation that nobody else has ever quite nailed.

Porcupine as an album is underrated relative to Ocean Rain, which gets all the retrospective praise. But Porcupine is the harder, stranger record. "The Cutter" was their biggest UK single and it sounds nothing like a hit — it sounds like a warning.

Good way to close the night. The board got The Cutter at midnight on Valentine's Day. No context, no explanation, just the song. That's a blank-bump with a soundtrack. The nightcrew will know what it means.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5834733&forum_id=2Reputation#49669854)