top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Stalin ≠ psychopath



Stalin was not a psychopath—people are too quick to write off the great dictators, even people in general, as “psychopaths”. Actual psychopaths have trouble keeping their act together because they’re so erratic they blow their chances—so they’re glib charmers who take so many risks they end up in trouble and then tell outrageous lies to cover it up. And they feel nothing at all.


Stalin wasn’t like that. He was a hard man with little regard for human life, but he was not a charmer—nor did he take unnecessary risks, nor was he without emotions. We can tell Stalin was not a psychopath due to two events in his life:


1. When his wife committed suicide, shot herself through the heart, Stalin was mortified. He said that he regretted not taking her to the cinema and that he’d been a bad husband (he’d been quite a regular cinema-goer, at least twice a week); and he became withdrawn for a few weeks, turned white, and some people thought he might kill himself too.

2. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Stalin had a complete breakdown for about three days (there is a disagreement over about for how long but agreement that it happened) and he was, in effect, unable to lead the country. At one point he just issued the melancholy statement, “Lenin left us a great legacy and we fucked it up!”.


So Stalin did have what we call “empathy” for other people—or perhaps we could say “compassion”. He felt genuinely bad when his wife killed herself, even if he had treated her with disregard, and people thought he might kill himself too.


He felt terrible when it looked like the Soviet Union might fall. He felt terrible, in part, because he genuinely venerated Lenin—even though Lenin came to disdain him at the end. Stalin read and re-read Lenin’s works and even read Lenin’s very dry philosophical work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism when he was in power and when he had other pressing concerns.


“Fuck.”

He put little notes in the margins that agreed with Lenin in amusement, such as “Oi, mama! What a nightmare!”, when Lenin carried out a rhetorical “sick burn” against a philosophical point he disagreed with; and he wrote “Lenin, Lenin, Lenin, Lenin” over and over again in the book.


In other words, Stalin had an emotional attachment to Lenin even after he died and felt bad that he had messed up what Lenin had built. Psychopaths aren’t like that. A psychopath, in a similar situation, confronted by Hitler’s betrayal and the collapse of the Soviet armed forces, would have remained completely cool and in command of himself.


Indeed, it’s a moments like that you do want a genuine psychopath in command—they just don’t feel anything, either over their own losses or the losses inflicted on other people. So a genuine psychopath would have taken Hitler’s invasion and the collapse of his army in his stride—he would have seemed like the consummate leader, unperturbed by any event.

Nor would a psychopath express regret and appear genuinely mortified that his wife killed herself. He would express glib remorse but he wouldn’t be able to fake the physical symptoms of grief—like turning white or becoming withdrawn.


Stalin was a sensitive guy. When he was young he was a poet—and his poetry was good enough to be published; he remained interested in Georgian poetry throughout his life. As you can see from the remorse he felt over the death of his wife and his emotional collapse when the USSR almost fell, he really did have strong emotions and attachments—even if he kept them hidden to “get the job done”.

He could be reckless with human life, true—it was noted that his military losses in the Civil War were excessive compared to other commanders. However, there’s a difference between a poet who has hardened himself and a psychopath. The truth is that psychopaths are usually not very competent—they’re very impulsive and don’t have the patience to stay in position for too long; it’s difficult for them to rise to high positions, even if they are very intelligent.


Ted Bundy is a good example in this respect: high intelligence, good-looking, charming, able to talk himself into a job or university course—and yet way too impulsive to stay in a position for long enough to accrue real power.

People like the “psychopath” explanation because it’s scientific and, therefore, high-status. It means that “bad men” are a medical problem—there’s no evil in the world, there’s no spiritual struggle; it’s just some brain chemistry dysfunction.


Stalin had a moral code, as adumbrated on the flyleaf to Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:


“NB! If a man is


1) strong (spiritually),

2) active,

3) intelligent (or capable),

then he is a good person, regardless of any other ‘vices’!


1) weakness,

2) idleness,

3) stupidity


These are the only thing (sic) that can be called vices. Everything else...is undoubtedly virtue.”


So here you see how Stalin thought—the book the notes were made in was published in 1939, so you have a clear view as to how Stalin thought about his rule at its high-point and how he guided his life. It intrigues to think what he meant by “spiritually”—because the work he made the note in is a defence of absolute materialism (i.e. there is an external world, it can be known objectively—and it is represented in our mind through brain chemistry).

However, some people use the word “spiritually” very loosely, or as a metaphor for the psychological ego—it would interest to know what the Russian word Stalin used means.


It’s a Nietzschean credo more than a Marxist one really—it owes something to Machiavelli too. Anyway, Stalin was far from an “amoral” or “emotionless” man—he had a moral code (which is not self-evidently bad) and he had emotional attachment to people; if anything, he had to suppress his emotional side to achieve results (“strong”—point number 1).

Stalin took power because he had a tight ethnocentric group behind him—his fellow Georgians from bandit country; and they could push out the ethnocentric Jewish cabal around Trotsky. Stalin was successful because he was very paranoid and from his earliest days moved to “purge” risks—so in the Civil War he chucked a load of former Tsarist officers who had joined the Red Army on a barge and tried to drown them at the earliest opportunity (until Lenin stopped him).


This prudence (not paranoia) served him well—it removed genuine plots and also meant Stalin could promote men from modest backgrounds who would be grateful to him into higher positions in the state.

Stalin’s prudence worked so well that, towards the end of his life, he finally realised that he had been played by Judeo-Masonry all along—and that even the “loyal Jews” on his side plotted to kill him (the “doctors’ plot” was real). Hence he turned against Israel and against Judeo-Masonry—that was how the Cold War started. Russia exited the Judeo-Masonic sphere for a while, hence the Soviets switched from support for Israel in her early days to support for the Arabs. However, in the end, Judeo-Masonry reasserted control over Russia through her penetration into the KGB—which is how Putin came to power.



















122 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

1 Comment


Unknown member
Jul 24, 2023

Stalin was probably poisoned.

Like
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page