Ego Death Podcast

White zen enso on black background

From Ego Death Podcast

Hey there internet folks. We're Zack and Josh and Ego Death is our first foray into podcasting.

This project is very much a work in progress, but the gist is that we're having conversations we'd have with each other, or friends anyway, and recording them for anyone that might have interest.

We settled on the name Ego Death because it sounds edgy but isn't, kinda like us. You can expect thoughtful (maybe humorous) treatment of provocative issues, something we both feel is a bit lacking in online and irl discourse.

If you're into nihilism, anarchism, philosophy, and similar you're probably someone we'd like to talk to. Please feel free to reach out with praise, outrage, topics you'd like to hear discussed, suggestions for improvements, or any other comments. You can contact us at @egodeathpodcast@ni.hil.ist or harass me personally (Josh) at @ruin@ni.hil.ist if you're really pissed at something I said. (Zack does all the actual work, so I won't have him take the heat for my mouthing off.)

Thanks for checking out the podcast. We look forward to talking with you.

There are 76 Comments

only about a third of the podcast and pleasantly surprised. interesting and noteworthy convo so far. there's a real lack of these kinds of podcasts (the headier ones) among NA anarchists. if anyone knows more please share thanks!

Thanks for the feedback! We’re honestly trying to have the same conversations Zack and I typically have on the phone but with a little bit more of a cohesive theme (we like tangents) so folks can follow. I can’t recommend anything similar that’s anarchist, but the older episodes of Hermitix (pre- James going full catholic) were really excellent and I’ve learned to enjoy machinic unconscious happy hour (very nerdy and it took time to get over the twitter bro vibes) but I’m really into post-structuralist stuff in a hobby sort of way so it works for me.

yeah I'm happy to see a project like this start up. I recognize Z's voice here. The conversation itself was quite good, considering it's two hours long and doesn't seem to have much in the way of structure. I've definitely been thinking about similar things, particularly with regard to Nietzsche's ideas of ressentiment and anti-moralism -- life, when viewed through the lens of morality, must always come up short, must always be inadequate. in other words, life denial is the impulse motivating morality and moralism (and this life denial is readily apparent in the rhetoric of radicalism). I'm reading Birth of Tragedy right now so I'm thinking about other ways of looking at the world on aesthetic lines.

I also appreciate the smart (and non-hysterical) scrutiny of anti-civ ideas, something that's also been on my mind lately.

But yeah, very happy to see this. Looks like ruin is in the comments section so I'll ask here: are y'all tryna record these conversations on a regular basis (or is it gonna be sporadic updates followed by quick cessation like our friends over at margins.noblogs.org)?

Glad you enjoyed it. We’re planning on getting new episodes recorded weekly when possible. They’ll be much shorter going forward (easier for listeners and us). If you have anything you’d like to hear us chat about, let me know and I’ll add it to the list.

Hi mini, wow, you are onto the source of future human harmony by leaning towards an aesthetic psycho-emotional foundation to socio-collective relationships and hope to see more of your sensitive and knowledgeable comments on this site. Hoorah!

i agree that this shithole needs higher quality comments. also fuck you.

Omg beautiful! I love the aesthetic of freely venting one's emotions unhindered by moral opinion. Beatiful yet again ;)

Commander, is it really you?
What a blessing and what a very interesting podcast.
Receiving.
Standing by!
Awaiting orders!
~HGS-NDMF #27

Activate Reston 6.

All roses are blue.

Stop.

you don't go on forays by yourself. that's just hiking

Thanks for sharing! I had no idea this existed. I’ve already told him I’m definitely referring to him as post proletariat whenever he pisses me off. At any rate, it’s my first podcasting experience, and I only met Zack during the lock-down through the BASTARD reading group’s foray (didn’t fact check) into an online format, and we’ve friend’s since. He was still pretty fiery then, but not full leftcom or green anarchist warrior. Kinda feel like I missed out. He’s pretty damn chill now.

So chill. Ask him about the time he stalked a woman and her kids with death & r*pe threats for years, or the time he threatened to shoot up the Green Scare Bookfair specifically to murder Aragorn!
Of course he never left his house for either.
And as long as he was pleasant in the online reading group during lockdown it's all good, rite? Rite???

Hi anon, I could have sworn your post said lumpy which got my attention because I know they’re a fixture here and so I’m curious on their thoughts and wanted to ask more questions. Either way, I’m not of the milieu so haven’t been privy to all of this. I only know what I know you could say. I’ll assume that all of these things are true. What would be the proper recourse, in your opinion, given that zacks current behavior doesn’t appear to be abusive or problematic? What is a suitable punishment that you would find satisfactory, or fits the crime (yuck)? Or, more generally, how should (anarchist) justice work in this situation and who is the arbiter of said justice?

Obviously the answer is to boost and promote his voice and presense in our spaces and the milieu at large so that the people he abused have to grow thicker skin and realise that because he's now a changed man, a persistent, chill bro, now that they should just forget about past abuses. Leave him with your spouse, sister, daughter to prove he's a changed man, cos bookclub. Maybe a two-book deal? This is not at all how society at large operates with abuser, male privilege so it's totally okay to replicate it as radicals. I am so smart.

Or, idk.. don't?

Is this a suggestion about how to arbitrae the Z situation or the plot of an upcoming documentary on the origins of Little Black Cart? Honestly can't tell

Har har. However, a huge difference is that in the latter situation, the person actually went through processes and scenarios trying to do the work to reach solutions, perhaps un/successfully. Zack, on the other hand, just doubled down on being a privileged asshole. These two situations are very different.

It’s okay to ostracize people. Obviously this is not by itself a solution to the manifold problems of interpersonal harm. I’m also no longer consider myself a nihilist but I do still find it kind of obvious that a critique, or a negative act or gesture, can be valid without needing to offer a positive solution simultaneously - one thing probably needs to happen first.

A person who harms others and then returns to the same space for support and validation without making up for their actions in any way is simply learning they can get away with it, it’s a situation which encourages and entrenches chronically abusive behavior.

I don’t necessarily disagree with any of this, but I’m still curious to hear opinions of what are appropriate or satisfactory consequences or punishments (the two are very different). Not directing this towards you. I appreciate your good faith response.

--although the sarcastic comments obviously don't set a similar tone--if you (ruin) suggested some things that you think might be appropriate. of course ask people here (and anarchists elsewhere for that matter), but participating with your own suggestions is a good move too.

i personally think that having a conversation in which zack/ev talks about what he thinks he (or one in his position) should do to make amends--with some amount of public quality to it, but also perhaps partially just between the two of you-- would be a baseline beginning.

what do you think are some steps?

Funny you make this suggestion. I called Zack this morning and our next episode will be a discussion of this situation and justice (anarchist and otherwise) more generally. I’ll save my suggestions for that conversation (mostly cause my thumbs are all typed out) and I’m open to criticisms on anything I happen to put out there. I will say briefly that I tend to prefer addressing things specifically and focusing on consequences vs punishment. This is a viewpoint I try to take with myself and others in social interactions and I attempt to parent this way as well. I’m also admittedly a “separate the person from the action” type (damn buddhism) but with caveats. Generally speaking I’ve done things I’m glad that those I care about have been able to move past and I typically try to avoid holding resentment as much because it makes my life a little less miserable as much as for the person that harmed me.

Hi ruin!

You seem sincere so I will be try to be too.

I'm theoretically interested in "restorative justice" (tho I despise the term) and have expended large amounts of energy that way over the years.

I'm also somebody who firmly believes in certain transgressions being totally beyond that scope, as well as very distant from this particular set of incidents and the ppl involved.

Beyond the scope of restorative justice, that windbag little shithead would have theoretically deserved to be clubbed like a baby seal in his sleep, imho. But as I said, I'm quite distant from these events, dont care if he lives, dies or podcasts and now you have your answer!

Thx for your interest!

Hi Lumpy!

Thanks for the reply, and I think I can see where you’re coming from. I’m somewhat like you in that distance, time and space, can make not giving a shit the clear choice.

I’m being extra sincere because I’m here for this discussion. The extra is because sincerity is the best troll repellent I’ve come across.

Take care.

Dont get me wrong either, I like it when shitty people are made to suffer.

Just wouldnt want the little shithead to misinterpret my casual, disinterested sadism because I can tell he processes all social interactions as validation, no matter how negative.

ANYways...have a lovely day!

Complaining about another person making death threats and then turning around and making them yourself seems really hypocritical

Complaining about "a bunch of pathologically insecure cowards [who] can't even communicate their grievances directly" while staying anon (not verified) seems really hypocritical.

BEEP

Awww, stickin up for those cute little baby seals, I'm bout to start crying here! So moved! The feelings!

But srsly tho, equivocating all different types of harm is the kind of thing pathologically abusive people tend to do.

Damn near every time I ever had to enforce a boundary, when I check somebody hard, the next thing they do is start cry bullying about it.

Very much agree with this.

At the same time I’d say it’s important to not equivocate similar harms (actions?) without considering them in terms of the “victim’s” perspective. People can have vastly different tolerances and boundaries and if someone says something’s fucked up I tend to let them have those feelings (well, obviously I can’t not) regardless of my own perspective. This is why I view any attempt at repair or apology has to be specific and address the specific victim/abuser relationship.

Like we tell our kids when they harm each other physically or emotionally, when you apologize it’s not about being forgiven but rather letting the person you harmed know you own your behavior and ask them what you can do to help the hurt you caused. It’s tough cause most of the world we live in is more about the avoidance of consequences and punishments, paradoxically I think, because we make kids (adults too) feel like shit by punishing them for so many minor transgressions and things beyond their control.

Fair enough! I'm usually pretty reluctant to interfere up until some major lines get crossed, which is how I square hard boundaries with being an anarchist. Beyond that, devils in the details, case by case, etc

I think restorative justice makes a big point about processes that involve dialogue among the people directly impacted by the harmful situation, and working things out on a basis that is appropriate to the specific context. Basically, this is not a question for me because I don’t know the situation except from here, and because I don’t know a ton about restorative justice, and I realize that concept isn’t the end all be all radical concept of justice. But it’s a good place to start if you really want to learn and think about this stuff, there has been seriously a ton written over the past few decades, a lot of it by women of color prison abolitionists who are not necessarily anarchists but are trying to think through a world without punitive institutions.

There is no one size fits all answer, that should be obvious. Personally I don’t want to see someone who’s been terrorizing people receiving support for their projects. Maybe not now and maybe not ever. This isn’t “cancel culture”, people who’ve caused harm aren’t entitled to platforms free of pushback, and this may not work out the way you want, but you getting what you want in every situation is not the most important thing in the world. Let your ego actually die, don’t just talk about it.

Both very good points. I’m sympathetic to a lot of ideas used in restorative justice, but similar to you I think(?), apprehensive about making any systematic response to conflict resolution.

To your second point, I don’t think any platform or space owes anything, including forgiveness, to anyone. Admittedly I’m not concerned about having a platform or being accepted by a milieu outside of the people who voluntarily choose to interact with me. I’ve never been a “joiner” and I currently get enough of my social needs met by my family and friends. Others folks have different situations and so I get that their perspective won’t necessarily match my own. I’ve bumped up against this issue the few times I’ve considered getting involved in anarchist projects.

not trying to say that there aren't differences in degree, obviously there are. but you're suggesting a purity that doesn't exist and is pretty fucking dangerous.

i think if the person who fucked up gets push back and addresses it (regularly, not just once), that's one option that could be positive. that could look some different ways; one funny one would be a "z's check of the month: what i did better this month"... lol.

Lol. That’s a great segment suggestion. Maybe instead of taking it as purity view it as an acknowledgment of the unavoidability of messiness. I’m definitely of the view that life is suffering and at the same time it’s not about dwelling on it or being negative, but acknowledging it and carrying on as best as I can for myself and those I care about. There will be shit, but I can still appreciate its absence even if only momentarily, and while recognizing there’s more incoming at some indeterminate interval. This is a lot of what we planned on discussing this week, but this comments section seemed like too good a provocation to pass up.

Episode 2 should be about abusers in the milieu thinking that by just allowing time to pass they can quietly sneak back into the scene without doing the work to make up for their abuses, without consequence.

It's called "hoovering", I recently learned. A narcissist needs their supply of validation and will circle around to old sources sometimes, to check and see if there's more life force to feed their sad little empty vortex that passes for a soul

Episode 3 could be about the Milieu being so much a bunch of pathologically insecure cowards that they can't even communicate their grievances directly with the problematic characters in questions... aaand instead going through absurd tribunals and peer slandering so that the call outs just go on like broken records without any consequences being carried whatsoever except privatizing spaces, therefore making sure the more skilled manipulative assholes can monopolize these spaces and other potential feats.

Episode 4 can just be all the receipts about how this already happened to no avail and also how it seems the suggested comment for episode 2 did indeed directly communicate the grievance with the abuser.

Inb4thedeaththreatsrestart
BEEP

Indirectly.

You doesn't seem to have a clue of what being direct means. A hint: this hardly can involve the internet, unless names are named and confirmed events are told, and those events are proven.

And no, a claim or allegation doesn't count of an event of something that *happened*. This is why it's called "allegation", which means an assertion that is to be proven. Or not proven.

Proof or poof!

the issue isn't a lack of directness, it's that je ne sais quoi of edgelord attention seeking behavior?

where you say everyone's bullying you but really, you sent selfies where you're licking a combat knife?

because you've been jerking it to school shooter memes since age 14?

<3 <3 <3 XD

ok lol, yet some fucked up guy very few people know about who posted bragging pics on anokchan years ago doesn't count as anything "direct".

Stalking is a “grievance”? It’s really hard to read that as anything but trivializing. In my day these kinds of grievances were usually “communicated” with fists and boots…

I was referring to people having grievances against claimed abusers or stalkers. Also define "stalking", as the definition appears to be very elastic through the social media ID pols collective consciousness. Just walking a distance behind a women on the sidewalk makes someone a stalker, according to some paranoid insecure types.

Or were you specifically referring to that Z guy?

I hate to disappoint folks, but unfortunately, we’ve already planned on nihilism being the topic for episode two. However, we’ll be doing an episode on anarchism soonish and I think there’s some meat in this suggestion, like what’s a milieu vs a scene, the preponderance of abuse and abusers, how to mete out consequences (punishment?) in anarchist spaces. I don’t really have many thoughts on this because some of these concepts aren’t ones I engage with (milieu, scene, cliques, crews) and others I’m skeptical of (fabricated consequences/punishment). Anyways, thanks. It gives me something to think about and that’s the point of this podcast, for me at least.

i have only listened to about ½ of this so far. i do not know either of the people speaking, nor do i have any knowledge of the harm (allegedly) perpetrated by one of them.

& i get this comment section is almost sincerity-free but here goes anyway.

our society has Christian roots so i understand the desire for vengeance and punishment. it is deep in our culture and we all have to live with that legacy. we don't have to delight in it though. i would like to think anarchists have put some thought into undoing such desires. the glee, the pleasure, i see here in wanting to exact punishment seems out of place for people who supposedly want an entirely different world.

someone up above said we all harm. this is true. how do we deal with harm? if we are all sometimes harmed and all sometimes the one doing harm, how do we work through this? i would posit that, even in anyones most perfect world, trauma will happen. having something else besides retaliation and vengeance in our transformative justice toolbox to me seems useful.

The call-out cancel culture that is called for by some clearly has Christian puritanical roots that have always been a part of the anglosphere dominant marginal political milieu. This goes back to the early 00s at least with the rise of early indymedia adjacent milieus. They started a lot of this nonsense. I get that you do get pathogenic elements of humanity that have to be dealt with every now and then, but call-culture was this puritanical cancer that spread and ruined many a radical scene.

Again, I'll mention the fucking cancelled podcast peeps who get into this well.

Hi rabbit, Thanks for giving it a listen, and your perspective. We’re in the middle of recording an episode to address the concept of justice generally and the situation with Zack specifically. No easy task, but seemed very timely and worthwhile given the energy people are putting into this topic.

Nothing like spending the hour hearing the perspective of the abuser and their very fine thoughts on *checks notes* abuse and "concepts of justice" specifically regarding people they've abused. Just what the world needs, if you ask me!

These catz are on the same road I am when it comes to anarch and anarchy after anarchist and anarchism. I liked the point about agency not existing at scale. There is less to no agency beyond Dunbar numbered human beings. Beyond Dunbar you get into intersubjective consensus mediations which quite often have parasitic effects on human beings and beyond that you have the rise of autocults and post-cults that become societies. The world of imaginaries and egregores take over from human agency where all you have is representational expression not agency. World change is something that is purely driven by factors beyond human agency. I like the Taoist integration as that's always jibed with me.

Regarding this Zack dude, I don't understand his beef with A. I liked A and always appreciated that he created an informational alternative to Ian McKay and his selective leftist idea of anarchism which he always gave an implicit bias towards. The only bad thing I would say about him is that he did no aggressively sever ties with the maotarded identitarian poisoned milieu and tried to appease them via moderation on this site. Beyond that he was a net positive to post-left anarchist discourse.

I don't care for aggressive calling out however, beyond the affected people(one of whom is dead) it should really not be your problem to take up particularly if he is no longer acting as a pathogen. Also, fuck this idea of a unified milieu. This is the same logic that reminds everyone that Bob Black and LJ should stay cancelled or that Woflie is a pedo(he isn't). I'm entirely with Clementine Morrigan and Jay Lesoleil of the fucking cancelled podcast in saying FUCK AND FLUSH cancel and call-out culture.

Keep the good discussions going.

Hi SE, I’m glad you liked it, and thanks for the feedback. I’m hoping the conversations will continue to be worth a listen. We decided that we might as well embrace the shitstorm, so our next episode will be about justice (and Zack). Our hope is that we can start similar conversations to the ones we’re having with folks of differing politics and orientations. Not looking to debate or argue, but to investigate perspectives without the need to reconcile contradictions.

hey, ruin, i'll get to the rest later. i like the fact of a conversation as you're doing it, not entirely sure how i feel about the content...

--
i don't want to be misconstrued - i neither agree with nor disagree with (in fact said nothing about) so-called cancel culture.

i think people who do harm, if they are truly interested in attempting to make things whole (to the extent possible) (assuming the survivor wants this also)(etc.), need to do that, attempt to make things whole. people who harm and make noises like they're fixing shit but don't really do the work, i think it is okay not to want them around. free association it's called, or free to not associate. (particularly with ones who are vocal about not doing the work.) as i see it, so-called cancel culture is an attempt at imposing consequences on someone who doesn't agree with either the [story of the thing they did] or [the facts of the matter] or [ ] and/ or doing the necessary work to repair the harm done. and the thing is, it doesn't seem to work. not for high profile celebs, for sure, not for long anyway.

still, on the one hand, there are some people i wouldn't want in my projects because as far as i know they have not completed an attempt at repair. on the other hand, foreclosing future association doesn't mean past accomplishments are similarly foreclosed upon. not necessarily.

because

individual incidents require individual solutions, for lack of a better term.

Hi rabbit,

All good if you don’t care for the content. I originally commented because I made an effort yesterday to reply to everyone who left a good faith comment/criticism and some bad faith ones too. I’m not a regular in the comments section but thought I’d jump in given it’s my podcast and I chose to submit it to anews (Zack initially didnt want me to post it to the site).

Only speaking for myself, I have very little interest in changing anyone’s mind or debating positions. My desire in doing the podcast is to have a mostly enjoyable conversation with a friend while addressing issues in a way that neither dumbed down nor overly serious or academic. Zack and I are definitely not in agreement on every issue we plan on discussing and I see that as positive. As far as the rest of your comment I’m very much in agreement. I’m less interested in scrutinizing things than I am in investigating relations, so specificity and context are important to me when addressing conflict.

hey ruin,
no for sure, that's what i liked about this, you both let each other say full sentences and get points across, all to the good.

hi rabbit!

just a thought, you know what's a lot older than christianity? everything to do with the concepts of vengeance and punishment. you might as well claim that the person who invented music did so on an electric guitar.

i find the notion of an anarchist politics that doesn't acknowledge an appropriate use of gleeful sadism ... to be ... well ... divorced from the reality of anarchist politics. there's no better world without passing through the current one.

lumpy,

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.
i'm not saying you're wrong, but i am saying i disagree. because i find the gleeful enjoyment of another's comeuppance (while understandable) is part of the problem, part of the thing that keeps us locked into this destructive world. also, i tend to follow Buddhist philosophy and so, as i see it, there are no others. enjoyment of another's pain is only enjoyment of my own pain. and that is odd to me.

Ah yes "the problem" as defined by mysticism. Gotcha.

Definitely not how I prefer to do things so you're quite right, agree to disagree

mysticism?
more like non-locality in physics.

it would be helpful if you unpacked that word a bit. i don't see my pov as involving mysticism.

I meant like, I tend to ground my politics in materialist analysis... instead of religion or some similar abstraction.

Mysticism as a neutral term for ... ideas apart from data from reality? I'm trying to be polite here haha

ok, i see where you're coming from, i think.

for me Buddhist thought is not religious in that way. i probably should say Taoist-zen rather than simply Buddhist, to make it clear(er) that i mean a material analysis also. Taoist-zen is attempting a description of *waves arms around indicating everything* in a non-dual manner. so, as i understand it, not transcendental as is Christianity or other monotheistic religions.

"Taoist-zen"

Please fucking stop this. This is only a fraction of a step removed from smudging yourself with sage and calling yourself a shaman while driving to hot yoga in your Prius.

I so wish lumpy were less kind with his words.

But we'll always have the thousands of other times where I was a jerk

no no i get it, you have nothing but insult in you.

carry on.

Hi!
:-*

Namaste

Greetings, fellow Buddhist travelers. I myself am a Buddhist-Taoist-Nihilist. My ashram is affiliated with the Temple of Set and we teach our young padwan that gleeful enjoyment of another's comeuppance is simply part of the meaningless natural order of the universe for non-enlightened beings. There are no problems because everything is fated and natural and part of the void. Hail Setian!

a sense of humor can be helpful in dire times.

it has to actually be humorous, though.

It's not me who's out of touch it's the commenters!

BEEP

Add new comment