Add new comment

The title is a misnomer, and I don't mean this as nitpicking, but as a way to discuss what was said during the podcast.
They're not so much revisiting, but looking back from they are now. Looking back in terms of remembering things past (historically, textually, memories) but also looking at a place that's behind them (a certain type of clique or milieu or event).
Why does this matter? Revisiting nihilism would look much different, it would nullify so many things and leave nothing to be said (after painfully dissecting them all).
The amount of things they're able to say it's in proportion to their distance and their recovery from an encounter with nihilism.
Nihilism is like what they describe a DMT trip to be. It feels profound when you have it, but you can't grasp it or bottle it or take it with you once you get out of it and language will fail you to express it and convey it. Of course, both this things are different experiences. It's not hard to come by things at which we are at a loss of words.
Clearly nihilism as the many things that have been labeled as so, has shaped them, but they're clearly not there anymore and they don't seem interested in going there anymore, and that's fine.
One could even veer off the topic of nihilism, as they did, and say that they've even left behind insurrectionary anarchism as a point of interest, as they did.
So I think that the chance for a more provocative title (only provocative because it would be coming from them and it would go against the misconceptions outsiders have of them) was missed and it could have been "A departure from nihilism and insurrectionary anarchism: towards something else entirely".