Ah you see, the mistake you make is thinking I am interested in defending my position to the unreasonable. You can take any position you like, I don't have to entertain that position, or even get dragged into a discussion about it.

It's an old tactic the one you're taking, which is to carry off your arguing partner into the weeds of oratorical flourishes and pseudorationalist blow-by-blow point-making. One can make any point they like "tout court", that doesn't mean I am required (or indeed that any useful purpose is served) to spend any mental energy formulating a substantive reply.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. I'm arguing that political nihilism is a possible position, and that being a political nihilist is different than being a supporter/opponent of the status quo.

Your argument seems to be that there are only ever two possible political positions: pro-status-quo or anti-status-quo. Is it really that simple/non-complex?