(from Eric Best)

—“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best

I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them.


There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE.

The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.)

And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger.

The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms.

So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year.

But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome.

And that means strategy and policy expressed in law.

Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.