Niklas Anderson's Blog

My Personal Echo Chamber


In developing an awareness of what God is, Nietzsche thought we could reach a stage of emancipation in which endowed our own image of God, our own image of ourselves, with our own morality.

But Nietzsche had deceived himself into thinking we could somehow let go of society's expectations. Society's morality is dictated by the pain of our ancestors, generally our weaker ancestors, and their attempts restrain the stronger who trample them. We are raised to not be a singular and focused will, but a will burdened by the wills our ancestors, and ultimately our neighbors.

He believed we could evaluate and uproot the morality that society pushes upon us, unburdening our core and unique self which was formed by the pain that we exclusively experienced. He believed we could become our own Gods, standing outside ourselves and judging ourselves with our morality as God would, thereby directing ourselves as our own masters.

Herein Nietzsche became emancipatory beyond reason and evidence. He somehow believed we were not deeply entrenched in the traditions of our forefathers, and that we could remake ourselves with exclusive reference to the here and now.

What is here and now, is what our forefathers left us. God, and morality, starts as an embodiment what our ancestors experienced and learned from pain in the world around us.


I do not regret what I have written.

I regret you having read it.


God is the ultimate other.

The full embodiment of how we see ourselves from the perspective of others.

Society is our imagined audience, as we act in our daily lives.

But our imagined audience is different throughout our day. And in private life, we can sometimes partake in actions with no audience.

When we reflect on our private actions, we do so from a more God-like perspective. Imaging all the moral judgements that could be made about us, with no particular person or persons in mind.

God is the totality of expectations, "morality," laid upon us by those around us.


A long walk in the mountains.

A long walk in the deep woods.

A long night alone at a library.

A long night alone at a bar.

A long night alone.

Any short moment.

Any short moment looking at a screen.


Remembrance of an anti-natalist's biggest regret.


There is an old fashioned belief that the western world could seriously challenge itself on the question of slavery until it reached a stage of technological development where slavery was no longer a viable economic model.

Marxists made up a significant chunk of these believers. I wouldnt press this belief too far, but there is an element of this hypothesis that sounds particularly relevant in the age of animal rights.

Industrialization made the demand for low-skill hard labor too weak to bare the slave market through the end of the century. The cost of offense taken by a witness to slavery could, less and less, be rationalized away as a matter of economic necessity, and the mechanized north turned against its southern neighbors, and decided their way of life was no longer in line with modern moral sentiments.

With the advent of low-cost, plant based meat substitutes and the general decline in human deprivation and starvation, the possibilities of a new moral revolution becomes possible.

This issue, as far as anyone can tell, is unlikely to warrant a civil war or large scale violence between humans (against animals is already the norm). But when the inevitable conflict truly begins to heat, it will be the city dwelling "libtards" against the "unsophisticates," so Roger Stone calls them.

The current divide deepens.

And a moral landmark is planted firmly in the ground.

Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to DISCHARGE its strength, life itself is WILL TO POWER; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent RESULTS thereof. In short, here, as everywhere else, let us beware of SUPERFLUOUS teleological principles! One of which is the instinct of self-preservation (we owe it to Spinoza's inconsistency). It is thus, in effect, that method ordains, which must be essentially economy of principles.

– Beyond Good and Evil, Paragraph 13

What is good? Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.

What is evil? Whatever springs from weakness.

What is happiness? The feeling that power increases that resistance is overcome.

– The Antichrist, Page 43

A new responsibility should be created, that of the doctor the responsibility of ruthlessly suppressing and eliminating degenerate life, in all cases in which the highest interests of life itself, of ascending life, demand such a course for instance in favour of the right of procreation, in favour of the right of being born, in favour of the right to live. One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death should be chosen freely,death at the right time, faced clearly and joyfully and embraced while one is surrounded by one's children and other witnesses.

– The Twilight of Idols, Paragraph 36


Getting to know a subject, be it a person or thing, is a slow process of finding the connecting pits between the wrinkles of something's face/facade.

Perhaps initially interesting; the activity, with some rare exceptions, leaves us feeling bored and tired of it in short time

It is an oddity, and perhaps a gift, to find someone and something whose wrinkles are worth knowing.


An oxymoron. Murder is wrong by definition, and there is only rightful killing. There is, also by definition, no rightful murder.

Only rightful killing, and rightful violence or harm; No rightful murder.

We kill for divine providence and our god given right to assert dominance, or we kill because it gives us what we want more quickly. By divine command or convenience, we justify the killing of both humans and our less gifted, but more removed, animal and plant relatives.

I am questioned, as a purported "vegan," why cutting down grass is not as bad as cutting down cattle. The only meaningful answer I can provide is: I intuit that it is worse.

I do not feel the need to argue that cattle matter. But I would need to argue that they are one and the same.

They are both wrong, and wrong under different conditions. Humans are not immediately or obviously wrong in killing each other, and they're not wrong wrong to kill lesser animalia, plantea, fungi, etc.

As modern people we know intelligence is an emergent property, and we recognize the uniqueness of all individuals. We do not all acknowledge the difference in value between individuals; Modern "liberals" declare equality amongst all individuals, beyond equality of law.

Equality of law, is not equality of value.

Animals have value, but not equal value to humans. Value, like intelligence, is an emergent property. We should not take offense to suggestions of inequality of value between individuals just as we take offense to suggestions of races, species, plants, liberals between each other, or conservatives between each other.

We are only worth what we make ourselves to ourselves, and to each other.

Not: where do I want to live?

But: where do I want to die.