The dude was cut off his head, cut out his heart and put it in his mouth


As a result of the war between the groups Terceiro Comando Puro (TCP) and Comando Vermelho (CV), the drug trafficker “Rico Pimenta” was brutally murdered.

To demonstrate their cruelty, the bandits cut off the head of the victim, cut out the heart and put the heart into the mouth of the severed head. Be careful, you might vomit.

Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.

The factions Terceiro Comando Puro (TCP) and Comando Vermelho (CV) are implacable enemies of each other. TCP controls most of Rio de Janeiro, while CV is based in Brasilia and has autonomous branches in Sao Paulo and other cities.

109992, Kitajgorodskij pr., d.7, str.2, Moscow, Russia +74959833393



  1. “Be careful, you might vomit.”, Did you? Tbh i didnt , after watching so many hazardous videos i have become a desensitised girl, who doesn’t mind extreme gore. This video was seriously nothing compared to others , such as ” Mrs Pacman face split up” and all that shitty content.

    1. Author

      It’s probably a difference in perception. I “broke” on that scene with the cut out heart and subsequent manipulation.

    2. Watching too much of this shit makes one numb, I feel you. Now you made me very curious for this “Mrs Pacman face split up” vid. Can’t find it here on Deadhouse.. maybe you have a link or something??

      1. This video orginal name is what I mentioned above, but DAMN this was absolutely bone chilling shit I’ve ever seen. FUCK subhumans niggers. Brazil needs nuking

        Modified by admin

        1. Author

          Okay, let’s kill all the Brazilians. And after that we will kill all the Arabs. And just in case, the Jews.
          And then we’ll take on the Asians. How do you like this idea?

          I live in a country where something similar has already happened. First, the communists killed all businessmen and nobles, then everyone who did not support their ideas. Then they got to the doctors and already wanted to start exterminating the Jews, and only the death of Stalin prevented this.
          Think about this when you propose to destroy any nation or race.

          1. You know what, it sounds pretty good. Imagine accumulating the resources and logistics, manpower etc, and just eradicating a whole people. This would go down in the history books; Chapter of the 21st century, “A people extinguished” or something poetic.
            Or even easier, drop a bunch of Tsar bomba equivalent nukes on the fucking lot of them and be done with it.
            No more videos of some brazilian being turned to mincemeat by a machete mob because he was caught ripping off tobacco leaves on his neighbor’s garden.

            Never mind the international response, I’m curious about the economics of it. Wiping out a subpar people means you also lose a lot of cheap labor, imports of produce and resources, exotic shit etc. Now you have to go and colonize the country, and who is going to be doing the backbreaking work? You, because you killed everyone and destroyed an already working economy. Economically, the best thing is to colonize, plunder and tax. Next best thing is let them be but trade with them. Genocide is economically only good if you have enough population to colonize the land. Case in point, look at Russia. You are 150 million strong with practically a continent as a country, but your economy can only be so strong because you still need manpower.
            However, economics aside, if some nation is not healthy to have around, then genocide comes back into the question. For example the Jews. Or fuck it, like you said, everyone. Jews, Arabs, Brazilians, Asians, niggers. Genocide them out of principle and pleasure. It’s like opening a window and breathing in fresh air when they’re all gone. Both figuratively and literally (because of all the CO2).

          2. Author

            Usually when people suggest doing genocide, I suggest they start with themselves.
            But what is the point of a total genocide if civilization then rolls back 100-200 years ago?
            Throughout the history of mankind, there has been at least one case when the human population dropped to the mark of 1000 individuals on the entire planet. And tens of thousands of years passed so that we could again flood the earth.
            Genocide for fun? Ok, if you don’t want to start with yourself, start with those around you. Oh, yes, we have a lot of columbine lovers and we remember how it all ended.
            Your economic model unfortunately does not work.

          3. But why start with myself or my own people?
            I think you’re implying that at some point down the line, the criteria for who should be a target for genocide will keep tightening and redefining itself, and ultimately you will end up at the point where you start killing your neighbors. Because some “other people” will always bother you and that genocide is not a solution to the deeper problem.
            Is this what you’re saying?

            Well, I’m not saying wipe out all of mankind, or my own people. Just the undesirables. That leaves around 1.2~ billion of us. And a whole planet with all it’s beauty. Heavily invest into AI and robotics to generate an artificial workforce.

            Why Columbine? They were two teenage dork school shooters who couldn’t manage to shoot the broad side of the barn. Most school shooters are mentally ill and/or deviants, also emotionally weak because after all, they’re teenagers. They think high school problems are “real problems”.

            Also, let’s say our nations jointly declared total war on the “others” and proceeded with the above plans of mass extermination, and everyone was agreeing with it, why are you the one being a party pooper lol? What do you personally have to lose? You have only things to gain. We are together moving in a certain direction, why do you want to be part of the losing team? Moral reasons? You remind me of the BLM protesters in USA. They’re mostly White, but they are siding with the losers. Their fathers are White, their mothers are White, their grandparents, their whole social circle and associates are White, but they turn their back on all of that and go out and get ran over by pickup trucks and get shot at by the likes of Rittenhouse. It’s like betraying your tribe back in the day. I never understood the appeal. The others don’t betray their people as much as we do, that’s for sure. It’s this whole White Guilt shit. Media is a hell of a weapon.

          4. Author

            Yes, that’s exactly what I wanted to say. ‘Genocide has a beginning, genocide has no end.’ Who will determine the criteria for who to genocide and how we will do it? For example, if a person has an Asian mother and a French father, is he subject to destruction?
            But after all, another part of the population may decide that they are the main ones here. And genocide you and your people. And it is still unknown how it will all end.
            Any destruction of the “others” on any basis will eventually lead to stagnation in the economy. How, for example, will you develop AI and robotics if you genocide a scientist whose mother was Asian and whose father was French in my example?
            All this has already been in my country and now my country is in a deep ass.

          5. Look at the majorities in most European countries. They will reveal who the original natives there are. Now, simply just wipe out all the minorities in those countries that stem from outside of Europe. You can easily identify them by their skin. Don’t kill the French man in Germany. Or the Russian in the UK, etc. That’s as far as our homeland of Europe goes. The rest of the world is self explanatory. My focus is on the rest of the world here, why are you focusing on the miniscule % in Europe?
            The plan I guess is, basically, like the Nazi Germany genocide plans, but without the exclusion of Slavs. This time, united with the other majority White countries around the planet, USA, Australia, and the Slavs of course, and others. This is the general outline. Perhaps Y-DNA haplogroups, ideology, etc, can be used too, when it came down to the details.

            The beauty of being White is that we have enough scientists. We’re the ones who already invented everything. Don’t think we will have problems in that regard.

            Soviets were infighting and doing politicide and classicide within their borders. No surprise it went to shit. But look at how powerful they were as a people united. First to space. Military on par with the US. Economically pretty strong for a bunch of commies. More gold medals in the Olympics than the USA.
            The reason for it’s downfall were political and ideological disagreements i.e lack of unity. Even Nazi Germany couldn’t conquer them as far as resistance to external threats go.

            Think it’s important to disclaim that this is just an entertainment of the thought, for the sake of exposing it’s flaws. Plans such as this would require a high degree of unity and truces. I.e the Russians and Western Europe would have to make nice and become friends, rivalries would have to be put to bed for good. You would have to convince a bunch of ordinary people to look the other way as you commit a mass genocide of Biblical proportions. Seeing that the majority of Europe proclaims some sort of Christian denomination, most would have a problem with unjustified mass genocide. Especially now that everyone has a full belly and smartphones and cars with heating leather seats.
            The list of problems to solve go on and on.

          6. Author

            Ok, what are we going to do, for example, with the Albanians who live in Europe? Or with the Turks? They are Muslims.
            Note to you: according to Klesov’s research, the largest number of Aryans with the R1A1 haplogroup is observed among the Bashkirs and Poles.
            I think you do not need to explain that the Bashkirs have a pronounced Asian appearance.
            You are in vain performing praises to the collapsed USSR. If everything was so good, it would not have fallen apart. What the capitalist world achieved without difficulty, the USSR achieved at the cost of incredible efforts.
            Yuri Gagarin went into space in 1961, and toilet paper was only produced in the USSR in 1963.
            However, we can observe the genocide right now when tens of thousands of Ukrainians die.
            And I don’t see economic growth in Ukraine and Russia. We even see the opposite picture.
            The model of the world order proposed by you is not viable, there must be other methods.

          7. I agree, the Soviet Union was a forced implementation of a flawed world view. The point of that paragraph was to highlight what’s possible when many people unite towards a common goal.
            The haplogroups and the term “Aryan” only confuse things. Look at the white people of Europe. That’s who matters.
            Slavs genociding Slavs is just another day in Europe. And war costs money, you’re right. I never said it would be economically profitable, if you read the above you will find I have said quite the contrary. There’s nothing to gain here other than a reputation. Wars with especially strong enemies are never favorable. Because again, the costs of war spike exponentially the stronger the enemy and the longer it goes on. If you’re looking for money, any military action that need be had, should be done with resources in mind, and one where there’s no danger of international repercussion, sanctions, etc. For example, plundering Africa back in the day. Look how profitable that turned out. Grudge matches between neighbors is too small minded.

            As far as Albanians and Turks go, personally they seem like an unsavory bunch to me. Behaving like uncivilized mongrel, spitting on the ground, being loud and obnoxious, walking around in packs. They remind me of niggers, just more nationally aware. Probably lack of integrity too. Not to mention the people / drug smuggling, etc.

            All of this behaviour is a huge reason we are even having this conversation.
            In fact, let’s step back and think about this from a higher level:
            how many comments on the Internet in general have you seen where people are exclaiming calls for destruction of some people?
            “Nuke the mecca” “nuke the whole fucking Middle East”,
            “turn syria into a parking lot”, “nuke China”, “kill the fucking lot of them”, “nuke Israel”.
            There’s reasons for this sort of reaction. Subconsciously they are repulsed and are looking for a solution to some unidentified problem. It’s because that person has a strong dislike towards whatever sort of behavior is shown in the video or article. There is something that repulses them. Be it child rape, animal abuse, burning someone alive, putting guns in kids hands and telling them to execute the person in front for God, whatever it may be. As humans we segregate ourselves into tribal groups founded on common attributes. Psychologists have carried out studies where they found that “sensitivity to disgust” is a significant indicator of a person’s political position (left wing vs right wing). People with a high sensitivity to disgust are in fact highly likely to be right wingers. They gravitate towards some sort of order, purity and structure.
            Now personally, I don’t particularily enjoy watching these videos here. I am disgusted by the people in the videos and by all of this. I am disgusted by most comments and the sick scum that write them. By people spitting on the floor, abusing animals, sexual harassment, morally weak people shitting on the streets and not working to at least have clean living conditions (india, liberia, and other similar but less known shitholes).
            And you can’t blame someone if he gets sick of all the depravity and finally gets the idea of “purging” whatever he deems repulsive, corrupt and disgusting.

            It wouldn’t work, you’re right. I am not saying anything to the contrary.

          8. Author

            If I understand your idea correctly, you suggested the following: let’s arrange the genocide of a large group of people. When people from certain (it is not clear by whom and how) groups are destroyed, this will cause economic growth, because. jobs will be released. Is not it?
            You cannot unite people with ideas of hatred and destruction. This does not work.
            I witnessed how they tried to unite Russians with the help of hatred for all non-Russians in 2007-2008. It was then that the ideas of the so-called. “Russian world”. The dumbest fell for it, but those with brains despise it.
            People can be united by ideas of creation, not destruction.
            People like to look at sex and violence no matter what they say.
            On this site, we just give people what they really want to see.

          9. I am just playing devil’s advocate. I even gave reasons why it wouldn’t work, as you did. I was just curious where this train of thought would lead.

            The idea was initially to kill all non-Whites. Why? Because people (we) are sick of them. After that we started considering the economicalness of this whole venture.
            Jobs will technically be released, but this is not the point. The motives were mostly ideological and supremacist. In fact, now that you killed 6 billion people, you have less global output, and need more workforce. This is why I brought up AI and robotics.

            Does watching violence leave you fulfilled? It surely doesn’t leave me happy

          10. Author

            The idea of total genocide was a so-so idea. But if you are already fantasizing, I propose the idea of a total reorganization of the planet Earth.
            What would you say if you had such an opportunity?
            For example, you possess an annihilation weapon and dictate your will to the world.
            What will you do?

            As for the contemplation of corpses and everything else about me personally, no. It doesn’t give me pleasure. I’d love to run a cat site, but I happen to have a site dedicated to blood and violence.

          11. As in, kill everyone or kill noone?
            Back when I fancied myself a misanthrope, I would have probably answered naively to just wipe out mankind.
            But now, probably not.
            There’s people who’d rather save what’s left of the ecosystem by getting rid of us because of the CO2 etc. And I really understand that but I’m also a theist and I think we’re here for a reason, and just taking us out of the equation isn’t solving the problem, it’s just eliminating both the problem and the solution.

            If however you mean targetted destruction, then I’d probably take out the trash.
            Corrupt politicians, criminals, the scum of the earth etc. Whoever is destroying the natural order of things (i.e stagnating the progress or not helping to fix).
            I’m old fashioned and don’t fancy this transgender debacle too much. It’s an insult to humanity.
            I think you know my stance already on the Jewish question. Specifically the Zionists mind you, and whoever thinks that he’s part of the “God’s Chosen Ones to rule over the goyim”.

          12. Author

            You’re talking about genocide again. But the problem with genocide is the lack of selectivity.
            I’m asking about the structure of the world as a whole. What does an ideal world look like to you?
            I noticed that you mention CO2. But we live at the end of the ice age, there is nothing surprising in the growth of CO2. Anthropogenic influence on the climate is negligible.

          13. Well, it’s a hard question. I’m a theist and I believe the situation is what it is for a reason. We’re not in paradise, so there’s bound to be suffering and hardship, no matter what you do. There will always be something to improve upon. And that’s really my only focus. Take out the trash for today, and tomorrow we will see what’s there to do.
            Even if you made the world “ideal”, and you put your feet up, it would all start to deteriorate, simply due to our selfish human nature.
            So in a way, even if you have a “perfect” house, it will deteriorate if you don’t do upkeep and maintenance.

            I guess you’re right about the CO2. I don’t really give a fuck about it to be honest. Now we’re getting shit electric cars. What a time to be alive.

            Say, what does an ideal world look to you?

          14. Author

            In an ideal world there is no place for dictatorship. All these fucking Kim Jong-Uns, Putins, Manduros, Assads must sink into oblivion.
            total democracy. Referenda on any issue.

            And yes, I am a supporter of the ideas of Jim Bell. Complementing all this with the ability to physically eliminate politicians, we will get a more or less acceptable picture of the world.

          15. Like I said, whack the corrupt politicians. Agreed.

            Let’s say Bell’s Assassination Politics was a thing around the world. Don’t you think the people who already have more power than us wouldn’t adjust and we would have a completely different landscape globally as far as gun laws go? The degree of surveillance of the common man and physical security around these fuckers? Meetings, conventions, press conferences would all be held virtually perhaps, from a safe area, broadcast on a big screen, because there’s people out for their blood. Random gun searches in the middle of the night, your whole neighborhood. The corrupt police would use this opportunity of privacy invasion for whatever else they deem fit.
            Ironically, this would be the opposite of a total democracy. It would be a totalitarian state. Where the government watches you when you take a piss, because you’re a potential politician-killer.

            Or perhaps give everyone guns and teach them to hate the state. Now you have anarchism, where the end result is a bunch of the most powerful people forming a governmental structure over the rest. It turns into oligarchy.

            Just due to human nature, we are doomed to transgress against eachother. Religion is a good way to mediate all of this, but the modern smartass man shuns religion, because he’s a dumb fuck who thinks he knows it all. Here, today, God is dead. Look where we are going.
            Look what happens when we abandon all principle.

            “Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.”

            ― George Orwell, 1984

          16. Author

            In a rule of law state of total democracy, it will be impossible to conduct a search in the middle of the night.
            And if we use Bell’s ideas, then the person who passed the law allowing the police to break into the homes of citizens is at great risk.
            Let me remind you that the Bell system operates at all levels. A kind of endless “judgment night”.
            As far as I know, a similar project is already present in .onion

            Imagine there are 8 billion people in the world and about half of them hate Putin (or some other leader).
            If each of them gives $ 1, then with this money you can create an invasion army, not to mention a lone killer.
            With the development of cryptocurrencies, these ideas sparkled with new colors.

          17. Total democracy is also synonymous with mob rule.
            And the mob can be dangerously stupid. If you think we as humans are prone to logical inconsistencies and irrational behaviour when we are acting alone, then take that and multiply it by a factor of 10 when you’re in a mo-.. I mean group…
            It’s like a gang of chimps. Also known as the “tyranny of the majority”. Look at the United States for example. Imagine if there was a poll to burn Donald Trump alive in front of his family. Don’t you think there would be tens of millions of brainwashed semi-retard Americans who would come foaming at the mouth voting for it?
            Laws and legislations are only a factor as long as the majority gives a fuck about them.

            It is a good idea, the assassination politics, a plan with good intentions. However, what’s stopping people for putting down payments for their neighbors, cheating spouses, ex-bosses? Are you sure this wouldn’t get out of hand quickly, where you’re basically using an already-existing hitman market to just kill people at will, if you have money? Especially if the ordeal is anonymous..

            Also, what if China’s 1.4 billion donate 2 – 3$ each, to kill a chancellor or executive that might be good? Good is subjective at this point. It’s just a glorified hitman market that is accessible to everyone, as opposed to being exclusive and obscure and known by only a small group of people

          18. Author

            In order for the crowd not to be stupid, there are independent media.
            No censorship. No “mutual takeovers”. Exceptional freedom of speech. If you want to burn Trump alive – please. Here is a platform that says that this must be done. And here is another media that says that this cannot be done. There is a choice.
            Of course, I am sure that there will certainly be precedents when one neighbor is offended by another.
            But here the market principle will work. Who wants to go for a $10 kill?
            I think this is a solvable problem.

          19. Ok, what about the elephant in the room, law enforcement? What sensible people would allow for a hitman market in the first place? Imagine telling this idea to your neighbor, you can already imagine the reaction they’d have. How many times have you come across “This hidden website has been seized by the FBI”, on the darkweb? Not to mention if they arrest someone live. I don’t imagine it would be a 2-3 year sentence for something this serious, + some backroom ass beating.
            Am I asking the right questions here?
            Honestly the idea seems far fetched, like something from a movie. Doesn’t seem realistic simply because its too sensational

          20. Author

            Certainly there are certain risks. But sites with child pornography or drug sales have been around for decades. I don’t want to publicly discuss anonymity issues, you’ll have to take my word for it.
            When you read on the news that the FBI arrested the owner of a site on the dark web, it means that the owner acted arrogantly and neglected security measures.
            As a rule, the authorities prefer not to notice something illegal if it is associated with great difficulties in identifying the owners.
            A project of this kind was supposed to appear, the idea with the development of cryptocurrencies just hung in the air.
            Trends and now allow you to create something similar.

          21. Well, then my only question remaining is: why hasn’t it been implemented yet? What’s the problem? Also, don’t you think gun laws would get even tighter? Majority of the world already has the stance of “allowed with permit (good reason)” to straight up Prohibited. (If you look at the world map, from West to East, you will see a trend from looser to tighter gun laws, respectfully).

          22. Author

            I told you that such a project exists in .onion. They even raised money to kill Obama.
            To create such a project, you need money, this is work for the team. I, as a web developer, will do such a project for 4-5 months, and a team of professionals will do it in 30 days.
            And for this you need money. The implementation is not a problem, on the Python framework such a thing will work very well.
            As for anonymity, there are no particular problems here either. Just anonymous domains will cost 5-6 times more than regular ones.
            The same is true with anonymous hosting.
            It’s only a matter of time before something like this appears.

          23. Fair enough. Think this discussion has reached it’s conclusion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.