The Four Tenets of Anarcho-Homicidalism

  • Posted on: 12 July 2017
  • By: thecollective

From VJM Publishing

Anarcho-homicidalism is a radical new philosophy that is rapidly challenging people’s conceptions of what is possible within political space. Despite the tooth-and-claw simplicity of the doctrine, it is not always obvious how one transitions into it from a lifetime of statism. This essay examines four basic precepts.

1. Violence is the basis of self-defence.

In this physical, material world, life is dog-eat-dog to a major extent. Cannibalism is, after all, a fairly recent phenomenon in these very isles, and often the only way you were able to avoid this fate was with counter-violence.

It could even be argued that the very concept of violence perhaps not being fully legitimate is a particularly human invention, and even then not shared by all. As such, the concept of illegitimate violence is far from universal.

A truth frequently denied is that all property rights ultimately come down to the capacity to enforce violence. In our modern societies, there is little more to property rights than being able to bring the Police force to bear on any trespassers.

Therefore, your ability to defend yourself comes down to your ability to inflict violence upon anyone threatening you.

2. You’re allowed to kill anyone trying to enslave you.

If any other person tries to make you into a slave, you have the right to kill them in self-defence. This recognises the fact that anyone who approaches you with a will to enslave you is going to succeed unless deterred.

After all, if you are not allowed (or willing) to kill people trying to enslave you, then you don’t have any rights at all, because you will eventually find yourself unable to assert them.

If a person is not trying to make you into a slave, you don’t have any more right to kill them than you otherwise would (i.e. in the vast majority of cases, doing so would constitute murder).

Therefore, the anarcho-homicidalist only strikes upwards; only ever up the dominance hierarchy. If no-one tries to assert dominance over the anarcho-homicidalist then there is no reason for them to upset the peace.

3. Everyone must decide for themselves who they kill.

Not only does the anarcho-homicidalist never strike downwards, but they also refuse to kill on command. Anarcho-homicidalists do not kill on other people’s orders, because to do so necessarily brings into being a dominance hierarchy.

Note that this gives the anarcho-homicidalist cause to shoot any conscription officer that comes to his house. Conscription is slavery, and if someone else tells you that you have to kill another person who you’ve never met, the anarcho-homicidalist is within their rights to turn the gun on the person giving the orders.

An inescapable consequence of the total application of this tenet would be that no armies could ever be raised to attack anyone else, because anyone being pressed into one would simply kill their conscriptor.

Therefore, nothing like the invasion of Iraq could be possible, because there would be no-one willing to serve in a dominance hierarchy that killed on command.

4. Everyone is 100% responsible for the consequences of their decision to kill.

There is absolutely no guarantee that a person taking anarcho-homicidalist action will be protected from the consequences of having done so.

An anarcho-homicidalist might decide to shoot a government apparatchik who works to enforce some totalitarian horror, but nothing within the tenets of anarcho-homicidalism necessarily protects him from the consequences.

The Police and secret services will still definitely come after anyone who homicides a high-ranking political figure, no matter how fervently the homicidalist believes in their philosophy.

However, a sufficient quantity of anarcho-homicidalists would still be able to form an underground railroad for the sake of protecting any of their own who gave the dominators the full measure.


This is an excerpt from Viktor Hellman’s upcoming 'Anarcho-Homicidalist’s Manifesto'.



not only stupid, but poorly written and boring to read.

The photo makes it worth it though.

Sounds like a watered down version of ITS.

I believe I understood what you wrote up here, but perhaps I'm missing something. To me this just sounds like anarchism. I don't see anything here that sets it apart. So, please help me understand.


To elaborate further...

You'd be hard pressed to find any anarchists who are against fighting back against one's oppressors, up to the point of killing someone should the situation warrant it.

Furthermore, if we look at anarcho primitivism and compare it to anarcho communism we see that each sect has sufficient differences to warrant a name change.

What you've said here boils down to, is it is ok to protect yourself against those who seek to dominate you up to the point of murder, yes. Everyone would agree with that except for anarcho hippies, anarcho pacifists and maybe anarcho Christians if you consider them anarchists. (I don't)

What you've done here seems to be the same if I said, here a new form of anarchism. We're against property as proudhon has taught us and others have expanded. We're called Anarcho Against Propertyists

I'm not poking fun. But what you've posted here doesn't have any distinction from anarchism and I see no need for anyone to call themselves anarcho homicidalists except maybe to scare some old folks.

So I posted a comment laughing at the initial sentence of this piece but also criticizing it for starting off with a bunch of false premises about this non-idea and some entirely invented hype on how it's making waves among anarchists. It's not, and there's no interesting idea here, is basically what I said, but in a sarcastic manner. It was erased. The message from mods is clear: ridiculous nonsense will be taken seriously, it will be responded to by the adherents of other ridiculous nonsense (emile, le way, sir e), and posters who make a point to not take it seriously and deride it will be silenced. It amazes me that anyone seriously mulls (as the mods frequently do in their editorials) over why this website gets so much flack, but this was once a vibrant resource for the space and it's the editorial priorities the moderators have made (and failed to make) that have crippled it and encouraged people to create and use other spaces instead. Yeah, I was sort of trolling, but be honest, this article was posted to troll. It's absurd, and protecting it from sarcastic dismissal is the kind of editorial decision that has reduced this space to a caricature of anarchist thinking. Look at the gibberish and deliberate smokescreening this place is full of: you have cultivated this.

to anon 14:19
your post was just a list of "no" and "no, it's not".
we love humor. so be funny.

I didn't say it was "funny." I said it was a sarcastic dismissal, which is all some bullshit deserves.

Many folk do not realize that we live in the midst of a majority of anarcho-phobics, thus, democracy is not an option. The Roman solution would be to place anarcho-homocidalists and anarcho-phobics together in an arena and pass the popcorn around, or olives or whatever.

WHOM they kill

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.