Niklas Anderson's Blog


This blog is also available to Tor users here: http://writeas7pm7rcdqg.onion/niklasanderson

I used to have my blog hosted by Netlify running Jekyll. But I found it all cumbersome and annoying, so I have swapped to While does not offer all the features I would like, it is more or less in line with my expectations of privacy. It is also simple enough for my simple mind.

I apologize if you have found this blog. I occasionally write here, but I do not accept any responsibility for any damage caused by me you reading what is here.

I have these categories which you can sort my posts by:

#MyIgnorantViews #MeaninglessAphorisms #TechnoPosts #IsThisCreative


It used to be the opinion of historians that the mass of men do not enter into history as a good event.

A massacre, rebellion, an earthquake: The mass of men did not surface in our collective memory in association with anything positive.

What was good to a historian? The few and endearing who overcame the masses to reorient, reach out and pull the rest of society forward.

Now it is common to write histories of “the people,” the way they lived, felt, and resisted the tides of power. All histories are now histories of “peoples”, in the most collective and averaging sense.

What can be concluded from this development?

Very little. History is now a common practice for commoners. The great men of history are easy and cheap targets, now the common historian scratches at dirt and clay for something to publish.

“In the future, there will be one science: The science of history,” or so says Marx. How could that science, of all sciences, persist under such circumstances? That the mass of men participate so actively in history that they know themselves as history. The great person does not go unacknowledged and unrecognized, but is immediately remembered in its full context.

A better challenge for the truly great men: become a posthumous in such a time.


The 'liberal' is “neuro-diverse.”

"Your mind is immoral by all any standards: The standards must not be 'diverse' enough."

There is a hidden contempt, and complacency in such thinking. The liberal is lazy in widening their short arms to embrace more.

Why not as follows, "Your immorality is failure. But a failure in how the world has presented itself to you thusly"?

It is not just you, but the world. And what are you, but a world condensed through a smaller perspective. Are you made by nature or nurture? Show me the line in-between, and I will show you the line where logic meets feeling.

Two, or more, things collide and make you. Yet you are rejected or accepted not with hope of change and alignment, but with the assumption that you are too weak for change. You can be made better, and the strongest know better, but the weakest and most "liberal" reach out to you in "love."

Pity, if you have energy for it, those who lower their expectations for others to what they expect from themselves.


Unnecessary evils are unbearable. So much so we revise our understanding of the world to provide a narrative to these evils.

The mistake of religion is the selfishness in providing immediate relief for our painful experiences, at the expense of making these evils ultimately justifiable.


Collectivist cultures, like the Mexican culture, broadly stigmatize the notion of mental illness. Mental illness, as a thing in itself, is not recognized as a legitimate label to apply to an individuals differences in thought and behavioral patterns. This is not to say they particularly stigmatize the "mentally ill," as western whites put it, but rather they see this as an unnecessary distinction for otherwise acceptable variations in individuals personalities.

Western whites, particularly in the U.S., believe themselves to be uniquely free as individuals; unconstrained, persons or peoples are able to pursue the interests that suit the best within some commonly agreeable constraints imposed by a minimized state. Early American history is rife with experiments in lobotomies and castration of the "mentally ill" or "unfit," under the pretext that these individuals required violent corrections or removals from society as they could not meaningfully contribute or cope in the market-based society we lived in.

The ultimate backlash to America's persecution of the "ill" came at the hands of the anti-market, anti-corporate left. The belief among some intellectuals was that the mental health system was a means of social control, medicating and defanging those who could not conform to the norms imposed by market society. The movement that was hostile to the 'mental health system', the system of involuntary institutionalization without judiciary oversight, and enmeshed this with a view of Capitalist society as a system of constraints and control over the mentality of its subjects. To fight the mental health system was to undermine one means the state makers and capital owners swept aside the unusables, and to reintroduce them into a society that must be forced to cope with them as a means to bend capitalism closer to its breaking point.

Capitalism has not died. The state has not, by necessity of protecting capitalism from itself, inflated to control all of society all-the-while destroying itself and the separations of all modern institutions. The prospect of human emancipation has faded into background as we continue to pay the price of previous generations ambitions. And the 'deviant' personalities that were once considered "repressed" by misguided doctors and social experimenters continue to struggle to adapt to pressures of the labor market. They struggle with self-worth, inherently tied up in the progression of careers in a hyper-competitive global market place, in which "employ-ability" and other forms of social conformance are required to survive. The attempt by the sympathetic left threw the impulsives, the alcoholics, the sex abusers onto the streets with hopes that a new horizon of economic and social inclusivity would be ushered in ultimately benefit them. But capitalist America never arrived at what the less scientific cultures already had, a fundamental acceptance of others mental states with a disdain for medication and external controls.

Like all social and political conflicts, the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes. Young American children now adopt the diagnoses given to them as identifying marks; every child has their own collection of ADHD, depression, etc. They have inverted the model set out by western mental health organizations, in that illness continues to be separating distinction of an individual from the common, but this is now seen by many as part of what makes us unique. While Latino cultures disliked the categorization of mental states, they accepted them more fluidly. Classifying psychological outliers became a process of elimination to the earlier psychs, but now has become a process of graduation for the high school grads.

We take our medicine, and we take it together. We conform and normalize the expectations imposed on us by faceless corporations who offer money in exchange for hours of our lives, and we do so willingly understanding that refusing treatment is to refuse better outcomes in this market. The myth of the market society that embraces all individuals is a naked lie: and we lay with it every night.


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.


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.


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.


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.


I used to be a savage connoisseur of apocalyptic theories: Peak oil, Irreversible and Extreme Climate Change, Nuclear Holocaust, World War III... On good days I engaged with the predictions of less disastrous theorists, like the mutualist-anarchist Kevin Carson, who predict a degradation of State Capitalism towards a less industrialized and militarized society of small scale society.

In many ways I hoped these predictions would realize themselves, and realize themselves rather soon. Those around me saw this as an expression of mere pessimism and cynicism, and while I cannot meaningfully call myself an optimist, I always acknowledged to myself the loose ground these ideas stood upon.

I knew the next world war was a real possibility, but not immediately likely. I knew state capitalism was struggling to maintain itself in the age of recession, but never fully believed that technology could fully vacate the men in suits from central control. I also quietly believed that "green energy" alternatives could relieve the worst results of "peak oil" *if* it happens, given that the bureaucrats would suddenly have an overwhelming need to make it happen.

I wanted to believe these things because I hoped for them. I saw no place for myself in the adult, modern world. It was always too complex, to the point where even those who were certain of their skills and desires stood little chance, and I preferred an alternative. An alternative where every other person, and institution, was equal in its failure as I.

I hardly think of these theories now.

Personal disasters have way of shortening your life planning, away from thirty to fifty years away, to thirty of fifty days away.