Here’s How To Think Reasonably About Physical Removal

I’m not generally concerned with the specific case of genocide as defined today, but more the general case of mass killings. Genocide can be seen as a specific sort of mass killing, but as we will see, its underlying logic is the same: surgical excision or more broadly, a kind of physical removal. If you have a cockroach problem, you could try to get the cockroaches to clean up after themselves, be responsible with the number of eggs they lay, and so forth, and thereby establish a more just society (or at least, patronage), or you could simply physically remove the pests, which might in fact be the most cost-effective way of handling their tendency to foster disease and damage your property.

Generally the logic of ‘why not genocide?’ for a particular pest problem, or again, more generally, ‘why not mass killing?’ depends mainly on an emotional argument. That is, lots of people dying is awful. And it is. That is, provided those dying you care for in some way; if they are hated enemies or subhuman (as in the case of cockroaches), you might end up with the Conanical Response:

Mongol General: What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

So as I noted above, while the will exists to extend familial or affine bonds to any given human this emotional ‘logic’ will work fine, but as we can see, it has no rigor and can be quickly turned on its head—the things which worked to make it awful make it all the more delicious. Thus ends the explanation of the popular or vulgar argument against genocide and also the popular or vulgar argument for it.

To correctly oppose mass slaughter of men, we must properly understand the arguments for it. To do this is a bit of an act of faith; I have some assurance that without manipulation I’ll come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the practice (at least in general) without having to distort the facts or warp the truth in my favor. It may be a wild ride!

As I have outlined above, there are situations where both a large group of people contains or presents a problem and it is either more effective, or only effective, to physically remove them from your jurisdiction. I outlined it analogically as a cockroach infestation. In this sense, the cockroach infestation is the “absurd” end of this species of problem, classically named “questions.”

“What shall be done about the [group]?” is the general formulation. Its answer is not necessarily physical removal—but we have to appreciate that the cockroach situation can arise. As a quick example, squatters often act as cockroaches (not that they are)—they may start a fire somewhere to keep warm which might damage the structure, they probably don’t keep very clean, given there is no running water, etc. The proper solution with squatters is to evict them as quickly as possible from the abandoned building, before they make it worse than it is. Like cockroaches, they don’t own the place, and if it turns into a giant heap of sewage and sawdust, they can move on.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.)

In the Albigensian crusade, this notorious quote is attributed to Arnaud Amalric, and the cause of it is simple: The heretical Cathars hid themselves among regular people in Bezeirs, and the only way to remove them was to remove everyone—like having to get some healthy tissue when removing a tumor because it is attached. Most people these days see this as an excess of religion, but from the perspective of the liberal, Muslims can present the same issue, though the liberal be as irreligious as Voltaire.

In either case, your dispute with Amalric is not his method, but rather the weight he gives to the problem of the Cathar heresy. Sherman certainly saw the same logic flow from different premises; the form remains and persists, though the premises mutate through time.

Out of everye corner of the woode and glenns they came creepinge forth upon theire handes, for theire legges could not beare them; they looked Anatomies [of] death, they spake like ghostes, crying out of theire graves; they did eate of the carrions, happye wheare they could find them, yea, and one another soone after, in soe much as the verye carcasses they spared not to scrape out of theire graves; and if they found a plott of water-cresses or shamrockes, theyr they flocked as to a feast… in a shorte space there were none almost left, and a most populous and plentyfull countrye suddenly lefte voyde of man or beast: yett sure in all that warr, there perished not manye by the sworde, but all by the extreamytie of famine … they themselves had wrought.

This is Edmund Spenser, known and well loved English poet, calling for a scorched earth policy against Irish resisting English rule. The logic here is similar, but different—in this case, example is to be made of rebels by inflicting some variant of what we might colloquially call ultraviolence—the purpose of this ultraviolence is to prevent the need for future ultraviolence, but also establish peace and dominance from which law and order can be also established. This, if done well, will prevent further rebellion, death, famine and so on. Even the victim’s group (what is left of them) wins, provided the rule is effective and those who submit are not punished just for their associations.

And this last case makes the logic of ultraviolence in the hands of power clear: it is preventative. It may be wrong to say that its purpose is to preclude the need for more such violence, but that is certainly part of the case for it, as even though it is easier to poison cockroaches than to train them, neither is cost-free and slaughtering anyone—even engaging in just warfare—has costs both material and spiritual. Particularly in the case of ultraviolence, rather than actual warfare, the latter is usually outsized.

More than this, the idea is that overall orderliness should increase when the “questionable” group is physically removed. There is no way to argue effectively that this is impossible; there is a good reason that countries have exiled their gypsy populations from time to time. It helps in that case that gypsies may be acting intentionally parasitic; but it does raise another point.

Why not simply exile these groups? In some cases, this does seem to be a good idea; in fact, when disputes arose between Jewish minorities and their host countries that were unresolvable, the usual response throughout history has been exile.

Cockroaches are a special case of creature, like Carpenter bees, that I call vermin. I have never in my life actually run into human vermin—but a brief definition is that vermin don’t at all understand that you are about to inflict ultraviolence on them, even if you keep escalating. So even though you kill one, two, three, bees, ten, twenty, sixty cockroaches—they never get the message that their whole group is threatened and will continue to infest, despite the violence visited upon them. In that case, they either must be de-verminized (in the case of animals, that would mean domestication or taming), or physically removed by killing all of them. In particular, vermin have the nasty feature of returning when you exile them; as a group and as individuals, they are incapable of acting rationally.

And it is that latter part that makes them most verminous—but let us say that you can get the raccoons—as an example of a reasonably intelligent but pesky creature—and get them to some place where they cannot come back to your back yard, like half-way across the state?

I was told by animal control once that the infestation of raccoons of an area is generally territorial expansion. That is, raccoons infest an area because they competed for, and lost, territory to other raccoons (or something else). That’s well and good, but I was told that they were forbidden from killing the raccoons (I don’t know what law or statute established that) but they confessed that in the end, the exiled raccoons would likely die, since wherever they took them would likely be the more well-established domain of other raccoons, with whom they would immediately have to compete. Even if successful, the chain reaction of that competition might just find a new set of raccoons ejected into that piece of territory known as your back yard. But generally, they said that the new raccoons would just be killed off by their competitors. So the practice was to release the raccoons, and then shoot them while they were running away. (I can’t absolutely vouch for the latter practice). This was regarded as a more humane and less grisly way for the doomed raccoons to perish. Your mileage may vary.

But it brings us to our point about exile—exiles have to go somewhere—and if you exile a group of people to wander the wastes and simply starve to death (similar to Spenser’s grisly image), you may not have killed them, but you very surely condemned them to death. As with the raccoons, it might just be better to kill them swiftly and with as little pain, rather than leave them to perhaps some form of cannibalism.

Most people in our day in age think the obvious way to deal with “questionable” groups is to accept their demands and try to appease them. They forget that this is generally the tactic known as “Mutt and Jeff”—and if you aren’t the one receiving remunerations to concede the viciousness of Mutt, that is, Jeff, you’ve been basically duped by Jeff, and not only will Jeff keep getting paid, but Mutt’s problematic activities will likely only increase. Except in cases where there is some orderly precedent, like for example something is stolen and needs to be returned, some custom has been denied and could reasonably restored, simply conceding to the demands of the questionable group can have the effect of emboldening them rather than quieting them.

To know where the line lies here requires judgment—that characteristic of leaders that is most sought-after. But it is safe to say that people generally appease their friends when their friends are acting badly, and punish their enemies. Thus, you can usually tell whose side people think they are on based on whom they wish to appease and whom they wish to punish. (That still tells you nothing about how orderly the result would be.)

So we can see that there is reasonable logic, despite being rather morbid, behind ultraviolence—and that it is the logic of sovereigns. It would seem, at a gloss, that individuals never want to be killed, but governments may wish at their discretion for men to be killed if they are problems. In that sense, there must be some kind of eternal war between the rights of sovereigns and the rights of men. Efforts to make governments more ‘humane’ are in part due to this fear and the ultimate anarchy it promises, if the rights of man should prevail.

But this appearance only applies to a certain class of lazy, unimaginative and abusive sovereigns; abusus non tollit usum. We can begin by noting that there are plenty of situations where governments have dealt with problematic groups without resorting to mass slaughter; but we note Paul’s words that governments have the right to use the sword “as a boon to good and a terror to evil.” That the sun can flare does not make it a solecism.

Now that we understand the logic of ultraviolence and see how it could be legitimate, we still find it disturbing. Since I don’t hold to the idea that the ends of a good sovereign and a good subject are necessarily at odds (though they can conflict), I don’t think that this is necessarily a case where in order for the government not to slaughter its citizens at will, the citizens must themselves restrain it from doing so.

There are two ways to go about this: the first would be to look at history and see how problem groups were dealt with and infer a pattern from that, or to examine why, in more general terms, one should oppose mass slaughters as answers to questions from the perspective of a sovereign.

Note to begin with, the idea that a sovereign which values the lives of its subjects in the Christian sense would never resort to mass slaughter is nonsense; while you may think of a scale where, on one side is the value of the problem group living and the value of them dying, and the value of their unique, individual lives as pushing the scale to one side, you’ve fallen into a trap of willful cognition: a general consideration of the cases of ultraviolence puts individual lives on both sides of the scale. Increasing the value of each can possibly alter resulting calculations, but not consistently away from ultraviolence. In fact, in cases where small numbers of people are threatening much greater numbers, this principle might make harsher punishments seem more rational against the few.

On the metaphysical level, the reason the sovereign is granted from God the power of the sword—which includes the power to kill whole groups—is for the maintenance of order. As Moldbug put it, “men are social, territorial and violent. They must be governed.” Christians must note that prelapsarian man was governed—in the Garden he may have walked with the Master in the cool of the afternoon, but there was at least one commandment—and it was to be obeyed without understanding why. Thus, we look to understand how ultraviolence against men, despite seeming like a boon to order and the good, actually turns out to be either a terror to good or a boon to evil, that is, in what way does ultraviolence of this sort undermine the sovereign’s raison d’etre?

To show this, we need to show at least how ultraviolence itself, aside from creating an attractive opening for another power to interfere with the present power’s affairs, who does not have intellectual sovereignty (in other words: does not define the terms of its rule but must accept those given by another power) might cause it to lose its mandate. It could do this for a number of reasons, but the best is that it loses the capcity to rule its own realm and descends into anarchy.

Note that one obvious example of this phenomenon is the French Revolution itself, not rather that the king had done such, but that the revolutionary government annihilated itself through ultraviolence and the reigns were seized by another before anarchy could fully develop. Of course, anarchy is often a state where much potential power is bouncing around, waiting to be grabbed (it could argued that the real motivation of the mostly criminal anarchists is to create this environment where they can then seize power with maximum despotic cruelty. But I digress.)

In the case of war, one is glad to not die; the law in that case is that all enemies can expect to die, which includes non-combatants. War is civilized to the extent that it limits its combatants, but the general law holds. However, in peace, the reverse is true; I live as I do in the United States because I have a reasonable expectation that USG is not going to kill me. If I expected it would, I would either move or live in constant hiding.

Given that, it is definitely true that the people the government would most like to remove are those who know this and evade either detection of their offensive activities, or simply evade being caught in some way. While resisting the power is unwise, some small number do fall through the cracks, like the cockroach that always seems to survive and re-institute the colony.

So what we are referring to primarily is a group of people that are probably not in open warfare with the governing authority; those who try generally get crushed. It’s notable that if you consider the example of the Branch Davidians, our government’s method of evading the appearance of mass slaughter is to provoke the questionable group into violence, after which the government can slaughter them in self-defense. (If you think our government was in any way threatened by the Branch Davidians, perhaps there is a bridge for sale that you’d like to consider the purchase of.)

Note that this doesn’t solve the problem and doesn’t actually oppose mass slaughter actively by handling the underlying problems differently. It just avoids people feeling bad about it. Given that the opposition to mass slaughter is mainly the vulgar one I proposed above, this adaptation in a democracy is nearly impossible to avoid. It does not actually avoid mass slaughter and this is not an entity we can in any way trust to responsibly handle problems for which genocide might seem an attractive and cheap solution.

So this group of people thinks they are on good terms, or on non-war terms, with the government. Then the government begins rounding them up and killing them. In the case of the two most notable genocides, the shoah and the Armenian Genocide, there were groups within those two groups, like the Cathars among the people, who indeed were at war with the government in some sense (for each the groups were: Revolutionary Communist Jews and Criminal Revolutionary Armenians) and certainly deserved to received the penalties associated with resisting the power. In both cases however, the action of the government taken against say, bombers, or assassination plotters, is relatively unquestionable from the perspective of the people; the plotters were at war and expected to be killed; like the Cathars, their knowledge of this was the reason they were hiding.

But for the rest, the case is different. We must however exclude those who aid and abet, that is, moderate Muslims who, while they would never bomb or shoot for Allah, would hide terrorists in their basement, since they do so knowing that they at the very least are standing on the edge of war with the power. But in all of these groups there were people who had no more knowledge of opposing the government or breaking a law as did you or I.

And therein lies the essence of the potatochip problem of Genocide. It goes like this: everyone who is not completely atomized must have associations to some group or other—they could, like the people living Beziers, that they simply lived next to someone housing terrorists—and now they don’t know that they can’t trust their government to do the same to them.

That’s well and good on its own, and is clearly a case of phobarchy and is probably not the intended result of the ultraviolence itself; but the more vocal and somewhat powerful (relatively) groups now know that they could be next. To prevent this, they will do things to attempt to prevent it. Depending on the existing relationship between them and the central power, this may be relatively desperate. And the more desperate it is, the more likely it is to become, especially among the paranoid, revolutionary agitation against the present government.

And revolutionary agitation against the present government is what caused the Turkish government to overreact and slaughter Armenians en masse.

We must grant that the Armenians would not have tried this if they had not thought they had a chance to succeed; and that is a fault of English radicals who meddled with the affairs of Greece, for example. But they could also, not having much hope of success, do so anyway if they felt they had nothing more to lose.

And the situation of repeated mass slaughters serves only to increase this sense, which creates a perverse and negative-sum belief in people, and galvanizes them uselessly against the governing authority. While in the case of the first mass killing the government might have misjudged the amount of order preserved or gained by removing the problem-causing group in that way, in the case of these reactive exiles or slaughters, it is the previous botched attempts to restore order that cause the next botched attempt to become or seem ‘necessary’, but the result from an outside observer is clearly a case of autophagy.

Of course, if people believe the proper result of a bad government decision is to replace that government with one they think won’t make bad decisions, it’s also clear that what they mean is that any mistake the government makes is grounds to threaten the government itself. Revolutionary ideology clearly sensitizes governments to internal threats, almost making certain that overreaction will occur. Thus, it is not at all odd to find the genocide perfected in the era of democracy, perhaps starting with the Haitian one.

Therefore, we know that USG’s tendency to transform problem groups into temporary rebellions, or in other words to change “questions” into “war,” is a defensive strategy that is very sensible given revolutionary ideology; the government sees (and perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) a mishandling of a “problem group” as grounds for a threat against its existence; it therefore cheats its way out of the problem as hard as it can. This is characteristic of insecurity—short term solutions must be sought because long-term solutions often do not resolve the problem quickly enough. It is the difference between building in winter and building in summer; in winter you may not have time to spend to put up a decent structure; when it gets windy you will pay for it. Likewise unstable structures must quickly cancel out anomalies or topple, whereas stable structures have time to execute a more thorough handling of the underlying problem.

The characteristic of ultraviolence by which it tends to foment distrust and disloyalty—even setting aside ideologies that literally teach that use of ultraviolence is cause for distrust and disloyalty—is where it involves the uninvolved in death. This holds true also for exile, but less so, (but exile has its own problems.) There is a line at which distrust outweighs the gain of physically removing the problem group. Notice, however, that no one in your house worries that because you poisoned the cockroaches, you might also poison them. Of course, every cockroach is a problem, whereas everyone in Beziers was not.

Even though we must absolutely reserve the sovereign’s right to use the sword, we could oppose genocide on the grounds that it is the broad, easy path which leads to destruction, that is, anarchy. This, and not some emotional qualm, is sufficient grounds to recommend against its use.

Most cases that justify it can either be handled by exile or are cases where war is actually present but being denied. (With the Cathars, it is likely a case of the latter.)

One additional and final point to consider is that as a class of mass slaughters, genocides will be more likely to contain a lot of uninvolved people, and so they are likely to generate distrust in the quality of the judgment of the government, which in turn could easily outweigh the gain that that form of physical removal might get you.

This is, of course, why the Turks deny the Armenian Genocide and the Soviets denied the Holodomor.

At the end of the day, we would hope a secure sovereign could look at addressing the underlying problems causing the “question” to arise and deal with them, perhaps removing the need for physical removal altogether.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. I would think it impossible to slaughter large numbers of white males in the West. More likely dhimmitude. Gradual, and ongoing for generations with a slow, dull pop culture anesthesia. A Brave New World type of thing. This is extrapolating from trends of the past half century.

    If white men found their balls then, yeah, there might be genocide. But, there would have to be clearly defined groups. It’s impossible to determine which side anyone is on now so I have trouble imaging any genocide under current conditions. There would have to develop some unimaginable change in status and belief.

    This is an interesting topic that can spark debate.

    1. The genocide of white men is coming. The executioners will be other white men, usually with sociopathic tendencies, employed by your local police department. It is well known, and blessed by SCOTUS, that a person can be too smart to be a cop (Google the New London case). The police are now militarized with heavy equipment. Combine massive killing power with sociopaths at the controls and you get genocide.

      My father was a Marine Corp fighter pilot of the WWII generation. He thought himself a great American patriot. In reality, he was the perfect Nazi storm trooper. He would always side with those in authority (institutions, the powers that be) over the individual.

      There is no doubt in my mind that if my father, the great American patriot, was alive in 1776 he would have been a Tory because rebellion and freedom was not his credo. His credo was obedience to higher authority.

      There is also no doubt in my mind that if he had a Corsair in 1776 he would have gladly annihilated the embattled farmers at Concord and Lexington. If the embattled farmers of 2016 dared to march on Washington he would gladly strafe their convoys, because he had been ordered to and if for some reason his plane crashed he would die knowing in his heart he was an American hero and patriot.

      My father is emblematic of the white American Gestapo that will gladly kill their white countrymen without thinking about what color will fill the power vacuum left when white men have been reduced to the remainder of the genocidal Gestapo. They simply cannot grasp such a thought.

      And this is the insurmountable problem. The white race will complete its suicide (begun in WWI) within the next two generations. Nothing can be done to stop it. Historical forces are at work.

      The future is yellow and brown. Blacks think they will succeed when whitey is gone. They will be sadly mistaken. Yellow and brown will inflict atrocities upon their people that would make Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot blush. Demographics is destiny. Prepare yourself.

      1. You are raising some good points. Your dad fought for and was commanded by whites though. It seems the Democrats are having a hard time running a white man as a presidential candidate. While the elites need white men for complex military action and even police (not to mention their own personal security) the Democrat presidents and party leaders hate and fear them. Maybe these white men might turn on ’em if they have another powerful group who will offer support. This is not inconceivable. That said, the behavior of our political class in the US is not encouraging.

      2. Poolside at the Decline October 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm

        Agreed. Demographics is destiny.

        The only ethno-state which understands this AND is willing to act on it is Israel, despite overwhelming condemnation from Globalists and the media they control. (let us set aside for this moment, whether or not you are on board with a jewish state; or on board with how you would choose to run it).

        If an ethnically cohesive nation state does not control its demographics (immigration policy AND enforcement); it will necessarily ethno devolve into something other than what it began with.

  2. Extending your metaphor, because methods are also part of this discussion: nobody will worry that you plan on poisoning them if you put out poison for the cockroaches, but if you start blasting the walls with a shotgun, concerns will be raised.

    Which is to say, there’s a different emotional (and rational) cost to different methods of physical removal. Exile is more acceptable than killing, surgical nuclear strikes are more acceptable than gas showers, and gas showers are more acceptable than wide-scale butchery in the streets.

  3. Very bold and provocative topic! (And a difficult one, too).

    No Sovereign should, or actually does (even in the USA and other Liberal States), acknowledge any temporal superior on Earth where the war power goes. Nonetheless, this independence doesn’t free the Sov from his obligations with respect to Natural law, which he ought to freely assume, and brings his own fitness to rule into question if he doesn’t have enough self-command to bring his own actions into conformity therewith.

    If the war power means what it says, then Reason demands that it be exercised to just that end, and no other. Use of the war power as an instrument of domestic public policy disagrees with the Nature of things, since that’s what the regulatory/police power of the State is there for. Promoting domestic health, welfare, morals, and order isn’t the same thing as war- since the targets of the policy cannot be considered combatants in any rigorous sense of the term. We’d think it manifestly absurd injustice if, say, the health inspector ordered an air-strike on an insalubrious meat-packing plant instead of assessing its owners a huge fine, or even if a drug-dealer were shot on sight by soldiers instead of arrested, tried, and then punished once duly convicted.

    It follows that the genocidal actions the modern State sooner or later undertakes for various social engineering purposes- in which individuals are killed as though enemy combatants because they carry statistical risk-factors, and whole populations slaughtered in the name of social amelioration (creating the New Man of Socialism, the Aryan Superman, whatever) without anybody ever having actually declared a state of war- are monstrous.

    1. A fine doesn’t strike me as the “proper” response; fines should be used sparingly as they use illegality to support the government, whose purpose, we may assume, extends beyond the mere extinguishing of illegality.

      As for an argument from natural law, it goes without saying that if the logic of physical removal is to remove the problem, the degree to which you overstep removing the problem, is the degree to which you overstep the natural law which dictates the justice of that action.

      Thus knowing “NAXALT” – which of X are not really like that, is useful. (I think Jim will probably write a bit about this at some point.) Targeting those of X who are like that with an effective punishment will likely decrease the XALT – X that are like that – which if we are concerned mainly with an activity and not with problems regarding nature or incorrigible habit which reform will not touch, is ideal. Thus slaughters are generally lazy or fearful actions – the former is inexcusable, but the latter is a consequence of absolute power always being distant (as man is not God) by some degree.

      In terms of things which reform does not touch, like cockroaches and Gypsies, some form of physical removal is most proper and certainly MUST naturally fall under the police power. If it doesn’t, there is something wrong with that concept of police power, it is likely another case of trying to conceptually bind power out of fear. In such cases the dictum suffices: there is no right which is not a might. Or, what power do you have to make it happen? Is it other than the power of Power itself? If not, the problem repeats itself, quo custodit.

      Saying simply that “natural law is against this” but not explaining the actual consequences which would unfold leaves most readers snickering. Even Jesus himself was not content to say, “your sins are forgiven you”, but gave a demonstration so they would understand that he was not just shaping sound to persuade minds.

      Modern states’ problems is democracy, in particular, consumption with mass consciousness (in the case of Fascism) or simple concern for all of the people combined with an incorrect theory of how to fix them, combined with the power to enact such schemes (Communism.) In all cases, as with Lewis’ dictum, it is an excess of a certain sort of isolated goodness, not really a Faustian sort of badness (though Goethe’s Faust seems to mean well, so there’s that–)

      It is also intriguing that the logic re: police powers is extended to the world mentally, while Charlotte and many places in the US (and probably NOT the Branch Davidians) where there is extensive gang activity, are in fact at war with people. MM once quoted an old rule: “one to three are theives, four to fifty are bandits, more than fifty is an army.” I don’t fully buy the distinction between “war” and “policing”, at least, I don’t find it binding on a sovereign’s actions except that sovereign will it; enacting a state of war or acknowledging one is not against natural law, though of course, consequences are what they are. Saying that police should not shoot drug dealers on site simply results in the sovereign doing what the US does when it wants to: provoking the drug dealers to fight back and then SWAT teaming them.

      1. Here’s the demonstration.

        Sovereignty is the ultimate form of might in that Sovereign might alone takes the form of right. Right, therefore, is not opposed to might, but the highest, the most powerful possible manifestation of might; it is the apotheosis of might. It follows that:

        -Any idiot can go out and kill people indiscriminately; only the State can convict and punish. The State that kills its subjects indiscriminately forfeits this unique attribute of insurpassable superiority and descends to the level of the common dindu or school shooter- that is to say, makes itself look *weak*.

        =A sovereign State wages war against other sovereign States. By waging war against a subset of its own subjects, the State admits to itself and everybody that the subset in question is a State in its own right, and moreover a State within a State- which means that the Sov admits to having *lost control* over his own territory. Weak. (Weak enough, in fact, to risk bringing the fitness of the Sov into serious question in the eyes of the other subjects).

        -By waging war against some Gypsy caravan or dindu street-corner gang instead of treating them as the common criminal miscreants that they are, the State treats them as its *equals*, and so lowers itself to their level and raises them to its own. The State is now just a gang among other gangs, who are its peers. Weak.

        -By waging war and thus not discriminating between the innocent and the guilty, the State admits they all speak with one voice, and that they all fall under the rightful jurisdiction of the Gypsy King or whoever, not the State. (See point two above for implications. Weak).

        -It keeps on going like that.

        Physical removal of problem subjects, then, is best carried out on a one-by-one basis. Bring down the whole battery of existing laws on vagrancy, theft, living off the avails of prostitution, and whatever, pass new laws if needed, then proceed to incapacitating and-or executing offenders, at the Sov’s discretion. If the State cannot do so, or refuses to, then it’s FUBAR.

        1. It’s worth noting that since all sovereigns are weak compared to the ideal absolute, this argument transforms from analytic to conditional; one can measure the strength of a sovereign by how much they find their position requires bulk physical removal or acknowledgement of ‘imperium in imperio’. That much is true – then again, if a military dictator comes to power and proceeds to kill a large number of criminal gangs, which is followed by a period of relative peace and lawfulness, we would not interpret that the sovereign was weak, but that the realm was in disorder. It is obvious that a strong sovereign should result in a state not falling into disorder, but mistakes can happen. I definitely agree that reliance on genocidal techniques reveals weakness (which is often accompanied by largeness) and I believe that MM came to the same conclusion. After all, the mass killings of Jews did not begin until Germany was in a state of distress — not when Germany had apparent strength.

          Ideally the state can handle things on a case by case basis; but if things have fallen into significant disorder, drastic measures are sensible and to claim a sovereign that uses them to be weak is to misunderstand what we would mean by weakness.

      2. “Modern states’ problems is democracy, in particular, consumption with mass consciousness (in the case of Fascism) or simple concern for all of the people combined with an incorrect theory of how to fix them, combined with the power to enact such schemes (Communism.)”

        I’ve often theorized that WWI was the quintessential shattering of Christendom, while WWII was it’s final schizophrenic scattering.

        The prevailing ideologies from that period are each, in their own way, a piece of a united Christendom, lacking it’s other key components, themselves manifest in the other ideologies. In all cases a unified coherent Christian world outlook is distorted with emphasis placed in an untenable fashion on one aspect or another.

        Like it or not, believe it or not, Christianity bound together Europe with a shared tradition and heritage.

  4. Laguna Beach Fogey September 24, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    These are unreasonable times. Call the exterminator.

  5. I don’t know why you need this comparisons to the animal world when there are so many well established examples on why and how Genocide, the predominant doctrine of warfare untill recentrly, was necessary and justifiable.
    From the Canaanites to the Aztecs to Lebanon and Kosovo there were always bad societies who against preventive murder was the right and humane thing to do, since it even saved the next generation of those societies to become degenerated human sacrafice themselfs. You often hear rhetorical questions about “would you go back in time and kill bad person XY?” when this rhetoric simply tries to disguise its own curiosity about the rightiousnes of preventive murder. No one needs to go back in time, there are enough bad guys born already who are just in diapers at the moment.

    Also, a fact that makes the handling of the “should we” question much easier is that after the action, the Children of the Perpetrators and the Children of the Survivors are seen as equals under “international law”, what helps other factions who think in the timeline of generations keep on doing these things.

    1. Many of the groups you speak of also had their empires or kingdoms consumed rather nastily by forms of imperium in imperio – as Evola would remind you, mere mechanical imitation of what we perceive as traditional norms or behaviors will not restore what Order was in them.

      The question isn’t whether it is right to say, physically remove satanism from your society (it is obviously right;) It is a matter of the means. Certain means (such as selecting a proxy for it) may be more efficient at achieving the goal (removing all satanists) but they will also have side-effects, one of which is (I’m saying) that it engenders imperium in imperio. The effect the Dissenting Socialogist above talks about doesn’t make it clear if the perception of weakness arises because of mistaken genocide / pograms has created that state of imperium in imperio (of course, what does a state care if we consider it weak) or if the imperium in imperio has necessitated them, which might have various causes, among them being mistakes made in human limitation.

      My impression is that the reliance on genocidal tactics from time to time is usually due to being in a weak position or merely due to limitation, say, taking on a new population in conquest that you suddenly realize you know nothing about and are completely incompatible with the rest of your people. Shifts can throw even a strong power into a relatively weak position, as anyone who has played Chess enough can attest to.

      In any case, one is not going to somehow prevent the sovereign from doing what it must to survive; if it fails it will be replaced by one that will, or else, again, until. Thus the prevalence of this activity through history. The point is to properly identify the underlying need of power that is being addressed often through mass-slaughter, and instead of pretending that it can be done away with, hit it at the root. In my case, I’m merely pointing out that application of the broadest brush seems most expedient, but it is in fact a trade-off, one that may turn out to be fatal in terms of the damage it inflicts on the realm’s internal order. Sometimes we get the impression that if the power were really strong, it wouldn’t hesitate to use genocide. But the strong power is the one that has the leisure to deal with the problem on a case-by-case basis until it either goes away or escalates into atrocity. The former case doesn’t make much of a mark on history, unless someone wants to make it seem like it was terrible. (Take the Inquisition.)

      Against those who always oppose authority, there is no way to win the argument, either through maximizing your justified brutality, or minimizing it. In either case their goal is the same: wrecking.

  6. Institute Order, and the criminal elements will be expunged naturally, like a common cold virus from a healthy body, be they few or many. Whether there is a disparate impact, or not is of no consequence.

    1. I am making the case that the ability to institute order is affected by the use of mass-physical-removals, and the reason is twofold: one, that instituting order often requires them (at least in effect; it need not be all at once.) and that two, how they are done affects how effective the institution of order may be.

      Obviously, I do not have the authority to act on such dictates and should not be given it.

      1. Yeah, you’re right. Good points!

  7. Antony – ”Physical removal”? Why beat about the bush? Why not be honest and just call it mass murder? Is it because this then brings in an implied moral judgment, and that to talk “reasonably” to what degree a state can use mass-murder against its own population or a conquered foe is somewhat of an oxymoron? Not surprisingly, societies that practised mass murder used euphemisms – “final solution”, “liquidation”, “ethnic cleansing” or “patriotic duty, harsh but necessary” and “pacification”.

    But let’s use your terminology. “Physical removal” in modern times requires a high level of social consent if the butchery is to be on an amateur “kill your neighbor” level, otherwise it will need a well-organised, motivated and disciplined apparatus subject to strict central control, which tends to be the case in more developed societies. Then we must ask the question – do we want to live in a society which has an agency whose sole purpose is to kill large numbers of people? I have no illusions – in most countries I can think of there would be no shortage of willing hands to fill the ranks of our “Physicsl Removal Agency”.

    And to give the power of life and death to such people….sheesh…and to have a “reasonable” discussion about it?

    1. “How not to reasonably think about physical removal.”

      I had originally titled this piece, “Against Genocide”, but I guess “Mass Murder” is a step back from that.

      As to “giving the power of life and death” — it already is theirs. Democracy gives the illusion that you or I might ‘give’ or ‘restrict’ this power from them.

      The instances of our own government doing physical removal while lying about doing it show that this is a silly thing to believe. Abortions, for example, are hugely opposed and bawled about constantly, and they don’t stop. But to have the ability to stop them means that you would have the ability to permit them, which means you are largely already in the position where you are responsible for the population at large and whether they live or die, whether you have the literal power to kill them at random or not.

      Moldbug talked about various “human alternatives to genocide” but then maybe the favelas, disease, crime and all of that are the true humane path… don’t know! But you do not seem to be thinking about anything other than “omg kill squads”.

    2. Yes, to be clear, I’m the one who came up with the title–as editors often do.

      Social Matter exists precisely so we can have reasonable discussion about such difficult topics.

  8. Pseudo-chrysostom October 4, 2016 at 5:27 am

    [Ed. Rescued from spam. Sorry for delay.]
    It is rather serendipitous how, at the same time you produced this, i had furnished a comment over at jims blog that could possibly have been even more appropriate as a comment on this. I will reproduce it here, cum bonus.

    Hitler often talked about taking Lebensraum from the surrounding countries for the excess population living in germany at the time. A smarter move would have been instead to send them off as colonists to make Neuerdeustchland in some corner of the world and push out/oven any dindus who might be in the way (A strategy proximately observed by China today in their approach to africa, as a solution to their own foreveralones).

    The history of humanity is a history of genocide. The humans that exist today exist because they killed off every other variety of human (and ‘human’) that they encountered, and there were lots of them.

    The British colonies of Australia and America succeeded because they brought women with them, and drove out the natives. Most European colonies in africa failed because they didnt bring enough women with them, and didnt drive the heathens out of their space (sudacas, a wash either way since they mongrelized).

    Such also was the chief failure of the crusader states, and so also did the aryans eventually lose their hold on the holy lands to the semitic hordes.

    If you cant bring women with you on your military adventure, your empire is probably overstepping its bounds. Military adventures of conquest that dont bring women with them to your new territory serve no purpose but to drain your coffers and to deplete the stock of your best men. Despite their best efforts, our alchemists have yet to figure out how to transmute gold or oil into perfect husbandos or waifus that will pass on virtuous traits to your patrimony.

    Or in other words, population migrations *are* invasions, of the most basic, fundamental, and essential kind.

    Alexanders empire was a flash in the pan much the same way the mongol ’empire’ was; a people are a nation, and a nation is not transformed unless a people are transformed. The hellenic successor states existed only in terms of exoteric forms, and in time even those fell to the wayside as well (though the arabs are quick to claim credit for the ‘golden age’ of flowering of academic traditions instituted by the ionians for themselves, and never mind how like al-gazali they discarded them later and reverted to type).

    The Italian peninsula contained many different tribes within its shores, but history remembers only the greatness of that tribe on the banks of the river tiber, for a simple reason. When the other latinates won victories, like most average ‘also rans’ of history, they would loot the granaries, steal livestock, and perhaps demand a regular tribute. When the romans won, they would kill every military aged man in the area, and take every fertile aged woman for themselves (who were quite excited by the prospect, as women are wont to do). In the end the whole peninsula was roman, and from this cradle, ascension.

    How crucial this dynamic is, for their eventual descension falls along much the same lines:

    “…Since Stoddard wrote, the horizons have darkened around us. A recent and stimulating book is Dr. Elmer Pendell’s The Next Civilization. The title may remind you of an article that Arthur Koestler published in the New York Times on November 7, 1943 — an article whose bleak pessimism startled all but the very few readers who were in a position to surmise, from the hints which Koestler was able to smuggle into the pages of the Times, that he, an ex-Communist, was able to estimate the extent to which the Communist Conspiracy had already taken control of the government of the United States. Koestler, stating flatly that we would soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of barbarism and indescribable horror, called for the establishment of monasteries that, like the monasteries of the early Middle Ages, would preserve some part of human culture as seed for a new Renaissance in some distant future. Dr. Pendell, although he does not entirely deny us hope for ourselves, is primarily concerned with preserving the better part of our genetic heritage as seed for a future civilization that may have the intelligence to avoid the follies by which we are decreeing our own doom.

    Dr. Pendell very quickly reviews the historical theories of Brook Adams, Spengler, Toynbee, and others to show that they all disregard the fact that decline in a civilization is always accompanied by a change in the composition, and deterioration in the quality, of the population.

    We know that such changes took place in every civilization of which we have record. The majority of Roman citizens in 100 A.D. were not related at all to the Roman citizens in 100 B.C. We know that the great Roman families died out from sheer failure to have enough children to reproduce themselves, and we have reason to believe that all classes of responsible Romans, regardless of social or economic position, followed the fashion of race suicide.

    Since the Romans had the preposterous notion that any person of any race imported from any part of the world could be transformed into a Roman by some magic in the legal phrases by which he was made a Roman citizen, the children that the Romans did not have were replaced by a mass of very diverse origins. Some of the importations undoubtedly brought with them fresh vigor and talent; some were incapable of assimilating civilization at all and could only imitate its outer forms without understanding its meaning; and some, while by no mens inferior in intelligence and energy, had a temperament which, although eminently suited to some other civilization, was incompatible with the Roman. For some estimates of the deterioration of the population of the empire that the Romans founded, see the late Tenny Frank’s History of Rome (Holt, New York) and Martin P. Nilsson’s Imperial Rome (Schocken, New York)…”

    (cf. )

    A society and a state is an expression of a people, and when the people changed, by necessity, the state could no longer exist as it once had, and it did not.

    In 1914 Lothrop Stoddard wrote in his Rising Tide:

    “Granted that Japanese aims endanger white vested interests in the Far East. Granted that this involves rivalry and perhaps war. That is no reason for striking a moral attitude and inveighing against Japanese “wickedness,” as many people are to-day doing. These mighty racial tides flow from the most elemental of vital urges: self-expansion and self-preservation. Both outward thrust of expanding life and counter-thrust of threatened life are equally normal phenomena. To condemn the former as “criminal” and the latter as “selfish” is either silly or hypocritical and tends to envenom with unnecessary rancor what objective fairness might keep a candid struggle, inevitable yet alleviated by mutual comprehension and respect. This is no mere plea for “sportsmanship”; it is a very practical matter. There are critical times ahead; times in which intense race-pressures will engender high tensions and perhaps wars. If men will keep open minds and will eschew the temptation to regard those opposing their desires to defend or possess respectively as impious fiends, the struggles will lose half their bitterness, and the wars (if wars there must be) will be shorn of half their ferocity.”

    Or in other words, it is absolutely vital that A. this business be recognized for what it is, and B. that it be conducted *in its proper order*. The difference between an Englishman and a German man are not the same as the differences between an Englishman and a Chinaman or a Semite or an Apefrican.

    De Jouvenal often wrote about the phenomena of supporting a lower class as a tactical weapon against a higher class; this can easily be generalized as a special case of a most perilous and double-edged phenomena; supporting the ‘far’ as a weapon against the ‘near’.

    The most disastrous facts about the total war of the world wars was not *simply* that they fruitlessly squandered the best blood of white europeans, nor even was it the fact that it was a *worse* than fruitless effort given that their chief accomplishment was making the world safe for communism; no, the most disastrous thing was that they were in the first place conducted in an environment where there still existed elements from outside proximate enough to fill the vacuums made.

    Skipping ‘steps in the ladder’ is very bad form. Its a bad idea to have civil wars when you’re still surrounded by competitors. This is something the English themselves have so often been guilty of throughout history, such as their unfortunate propensity for supporting ottomans against their nearer continental neighbors, or the spectacularly ill conceived and ill fated move of supporting jewish communists (but i repeat myself) in a move to topple the Tsar. Once celts and teutons have cleansed the globe of other races in the march for glory (or at least rumps put on reservations), then what is ‘far’ changes, and then you can start talking about WWs. Till then, direct your energies to their proper direction: outwards to the outside. (One of the greatest gifts one sovereign can give to another, is rivalry; as degenerate and subversive as it may have been, the United States and the USSR still elevated each other).

    So then, suppose, as we do today, that you have some alien pernicious elements persisting in places you don’t want them. By all means, exile them, if you can.

    Unless you have the understanding and conviction that, on the whole, if every one of them were to just up and drop dead tomorrow, it would be a non-negative outcome, you wont be able to affect even the least of constraints and curtailments on their presence or activities. It may in fact, as it is today, turn out that *they* start positioning in turn as the moral superiors in the discourse, as all slopes are slippery, and equality is not a stable equilibrium.

    If you are unable to escalate, your targets will sense this inability; your inability will be betrayed by your words and actions, and they will play chicken until you back off.

    The matter is in truth quite simple: if ‘Z-men’ are truly not permitted, then any Z-men present are in defiance of the sovereign, and civilized man emerged in the first place when ancient kings first began putting lawbreakers to death. If you pronounce one day that Z-men are not permitted in Landtopia, and then the next day you actually start killing Z-men, you can bet your dogecoins that the Z-men would be falling over themselves to get out, with hardly a huge expensive deportation scheme necessary.

    (The difference between a conservative and a liberal enacting such a policy is that a conservative would stop at the border, while a liberal, being a nuanceless sperg, would keep chasing until hes hunted them all down. [Not that that i would necessarily rule that out either, depending on the group. As the saying goes, the more you cleave to an ideology, the more sanity appears to be a series of unprincipled exceptions].)

    Its like dealing with boatpeople. You don’t actually need to be able to sink literally every boat there is, you just need to sink the first one you encounter, the rest will swiftly get the message (and that’s how Oz stopped the boatpeople).

    As the saying also goes: mercy is the virtue of the strong.

  9. The major downfall of the theory of “the futility of violence” (or pacifism more generally) is that by establishing that line you restrict yourself from the primary tool of reducing overall violence – measured, swift and judicious violence.

    You are left to ‘show an example of non-violence’ which only actually works when you have the ability to employ a lot of violence proxies like cultural hegemony, economic hegemony, etc. In other words, abstaining from violence works as a way to increase orderliness only in the case where basic order is already established.

    It follows from internationalist ideas (which are basically 19th century nationalism blown up to the whole world / whole humanity in size: “the African is just a black Saxon”) that if humanity as a whole is already in some kind of basic order, say, a “church of humanity”, coming from the heresies of the late 19th century, one therefore might be fooled into thinking that non-violence would raise the level of order.

    It is interesting that Jesus’ command is “treat others how you would wish to be treated.” From this simple command comes a fair number of other commands such as “love your enemies” (that is, the people you know who are assholes–) but another one that you might recognize goes like this: I would like to know where the boundaries are and how strong they really are. If you therefore let my people in without a whimper only to change your mind fifty years later and exile or slaughter all of us in a kneejerk blast of draconian fury, the foul play was obviously in neglecting your real boundaries and not enforcing them with violence.

  10. For weeks, I have been submitting questions to “Dr. Gridlock” during his Monday noon Q&A sessions with readers. My questions are about the elephant in the room, namely, Metro’s workforce. Their widespread incompetence, laziness, and surliness, combined with the near-impossibility of firing them due to the “WMATA Compact” giving Metro’s unions the right to appeal all firings to an arbitration panel. These arbitration panels reverse the firings in the majority of cases. Meanwhile, Metro’s employees have received raises far in excess of the inflation rate, with gold-plated benefits which would make even federal employees blush. The result is that Metro has the highest subway fares in the nation and a workforce which doesn’t give a damn, because they don’t have to. 
    “Dr. Gridlock” refuses to even discuss the obvious problem with Metro’s employees. The Post, in general, refuses to discuss issues pertaining to Metro’s workforce. There is no investigative reporting done at the Post concerning problems with hiring, promotions, and firings at Metro. The public needs to be educated about the wording in the WMATA Compact, which has created some of these problems.

    – comment on WaPo Metrorail article –

    The commuters desperately want the rude, criminal and incompetent Metrorail employees laughing at them and ripping them off to go away. But no one can mention the elephant in the room. The thought of cries of racism directed at them, them, the Goodwhites, or the disparate impact lawsuits brought by their beloved ACLU is beyond the pale. And they can’t blame racistbigothater Badwhites either. Oh, the horror. It’s like an updated version of Dante’s Inferno, directed by Gerard Mortier. Unrelenting torment, daily, every time they must descend into the living nightmare of DC Metrorail in order to get to their frinking jobs!

    How will these progressives finesse the nightmare? As of Oct. 4, 2016, they are confused, lonely and freaked out. Their multicultural god has misread the script and blown his lines. In their hubris they have unleashed Nemesis. They keep babbling about the metro unions, management, educating the public about contracts, etc. But « fixing » management or unions won’t save them. It won’t make the blacks go away. They are entrenched and confident that no matter how far they degrade the commuters they cannot be got rid of.

    Whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad. Bwaaahahahaha.

Comments are closed.