The Risible Logic of "Why I Support the Syria Strike" by Nick Fuentes

Prior to the strike, Nick Fuentes was bragging that he was right that Trump was only bluffing and didn't intend to shoot missiles.

But when Trump shot missiles, Fuentes now says it's a good thing.

Fuentes is shooting down his own credibility.

Also, he is confusing realpolitik and principles. He could have taken a principled position and denounced the strikes as unjustified BUT ALSO have analyzed it from a realpolitik angle.

It could have been a win-win. He would have won morally on principle and scored as a keen analyst of realpolitik that is often devious and ugly.

But Fuentes tries to justify the attack on principle, and that totally fails.

Machiavellianism is a part of politics, and it operates all the time. But it cannot be justified morally. It can only be understood as 'business', like in THE GOFATHER

Morally, the world community needs to bring an end to the Syrian War as fast as possible. There has been too much suffering. How would Fuentes like to live in a war zone festering with Jihadis funded by foreign nations?

It was evil for US to give aid to terrorists against Assad and destroy an entire nation, mainly because Jewish supremacists want it that way. And it is immoral for Trump to shoot missiles to boost morale of terrorists. It is immoral to lie about chemical attacks. Even if Trump is playing a game, a nation shouldn't be used a pawn. It has real people undergoing real tragedy. The US has no right to play god over other nations.

Also, Russia is in Syria to prevent another Libya. This is not a contest of US vs Russia for world hegemony. It is about Russia helping an ally vs the US doing the bidding of Zionist supremacist madness.

Fuentes can be a moralist(as he claims to be a good Christian) AND also be a keen political analyst of strategic calculations of great powers. But when he conflates realpolitik with principle itself, he is failing.

His IQ goes fro 250 to 25.