What do you guys even mean by nihilism btw?
There's a lot of contention over the definition. I think the most accurate definition consists of
the rejection of inherent meaning. That there is no inherent reason why you can't fart in church, can't kiss your cousin, can't kill someone you don't like. Money isn't inherently meaningful, nor is the authority of the state. Even the state's violence isn't inherently good or bad - plenty of people commit suicide-by-cop, our of their own desires.
This differs from nearly every other type of argument; most ideological positions tend to assume some inherent meaning and use that as a means to get followers who they can control. Communists assume that the good of the collective, and justice against the capitalist elite is inherently good, and moreover, that it is a necessary part of history and
progress. They harness ideas about progress and society to obtain foot soldiers for their cause. The same is true of nationalists - they assume the nation's blood sweat and tears is inherently meaningful and good, and something worth continuing to contribute to. Even collectivist anarchists make use of these types of dogmas to "build movements", i.e, create a false sense of ideological homogeneity for the sake of enforcing their ideal society (and again, ideals are built around the idea that they are meaningful, and that this meaning must be shared throughout some body of people) on the world around them.
Then, seeing that the nihilist argument regarding meaning makes idealism impossible, nihilism is not an idealist sort of affair. It's purely descriptive. It's simply saying - "interesting, it seems that for all the talk of ethics, justice, democracy, law, and so on, anyone can do anything they want, and the only consequence will maybe be that a group of violent individuals hunts them down for what they've done." And if these mobs can be evaded, or reticence or fear of death can be dismissed, one truly can do whatever they please without repercussions from God, justice, or progress - despite what is commonly told to us by the talking heads of power. And so, with this backdrop cleared, we find that the individual is alone and absolutely free, having used nihilism as a descriptive tool to do so, now uses nihilism as a tool to create; instead of limiting creation, imagination, and engineering / aesthetic prowess to the strictures of morality, God, and state, now we are each free to
create meaning from nothing. With absolutely no constraints.
Now, my perspective on this stems from what I've written above regarding free will - when nihilism and determinism mix, you get some horrific results. Many Nazis, fascists, and apolitical depressives find themselves in this neighborhood. That the free will / determinism question is and always will be open for discussion notwithstanding, I find myself aiming toward free will, even if untrue, for the sake of making use of the power of myth and limiting dark and cynical views.
Combining descriptive nihilism, as I've written above, with, say, racial-biological determinism, where nations are bound to succeed or fail based on blood, simply unlocks one's vanity and the ease with which mass slaughter can be carried out. I think this is stupid mostly because it does not produce pleasurable results for the individual. Far better to create your own meaning from nothing than to be tricked by cruel science and bitter collectivism. Now I'm rambling, eh?