If you desire to know if someone is an individual of moral fiber, good character and humane elements, a sense of guilt and regret are emotions that they would be familiar with harboring. Yes, this is a painful sensation, depending on the extremity of the incident. Though if  inside themselves, they feel pangs beckoning against them when they must make a morality based decision, it means there is a part of them that knows they may have done (or will do) a wrong.


I’ve never met him personally, but Bernard Madoff is someone who never experienced these feelings of remorse. A few years after his arrest and federal imprisonment, he was asked in a journalistic interview: “If you were never caught, would you still be doing the same thing now?” His reply: “Yes, I would.” The only regret this gentlemen had, was that his embezzlement crimes were discovered by state and federal enforcers (as well as millions of the public’s citizens).


World leaders, such as: Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Kim Il Sung are men who, similar to Mr. Madoff, see no immorality in the actions they have committed. In the last few years of his life, Pol Pot, Ruler of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge era, said: “My Conscience is Clean.” Nor did he have struggles or qualms about his conscience during the terrible catastrophic war crimes he committed.


Thus far, I have mentioned the names of a few infamous men in world history. Formally, people with the chemical imbalance in their brains that causes this void of mores are labeled as: sociopathic individuals. Its been calculated that 1 in every 1000 people have this condition inset in their personality. There are online articles I have read, which blanket what the author thinks all of the attributes of sociopath are. I happen to feel, that like most evidence on psychological disorders, sociopathy is a gray area. The tendencies and idiosyncrasies of one sociopath are not exactly the same as another.


Save for countries like the United States, and Briton, as well as several benevolent others, it seems that many of histories world leaders, in conjunction with being sociopaths, such as the ones listed formerly, have nefarious intentions. Is this a coincidence? The solipsism of these powerful men always seems to win in history, in comparison to the ephemeral terms of compassionate leaders.


Earlier in this blog I mentioned Bernard Madoff. He was not a leader of a nation;  he was the Chairman of NASDAQ Stock Exchange. Unlike the other politicians of interest I mentioned, Bernard Madoff did not terminate peoples physical lives. Though, himself being in charge of the transactions of billions upon billions of dollars, he did do something that was in the same ballpark as the other fiendish foes of humaneness: He robbed people of their dignity. He compromised their lives in such a way that they could not recover themselves. The hard work represented by American currency (U.S.D) that his clients had struggled both to create and maintain, were no longer of usable value. The other leaders listed, caused people pain and ended their existences altogether. Bernard Madoff played a game with his clients without their awareness, in which most all would lose, and he created for them nightmarish lives of poverty.


Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, and Kim Jung Il  were bred from different parts of the globe (disregarding the case of Kim Jung Il and his son Kim Il Sung ). All were men who’s names are associated with the unjust deaths of helpless citizens. Being classified as unworthy in the eyes of X leader, political brainwash, and the imprisoning agenda of said functionary ruler, are facets that caused innumerable human atrocities.


Each of these men were able to enforce a cultural image, deifying themselves and their policies. Unlike a temple, of any religion, where sanctity and salvation is reached, the adoration of these men in secular form, only led to: the small hope of survival or ultimate annihilation. At the end of every day these men had been alive, they went to sleep, aware of what they did. Due to both their pasts and the chemistry of their psyche, there existed the inability to see their work as sin or crime against mankind. In fact, as true sociopaths, without possessing a hint of denial, they see themselves and what they do as necessary blessings to the human race (or at least the religion, ethnicity and cultures they influenced).


Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Dr. Martin Luther King. Harmonious sounding names in comparison to the former individuals discussed. These are examples of social leaders of the world who influenced peoples impressions on justice, compassion, and internal fortitude. They are famous for aiding in the doctrine and realization that there are peaceful, perhaps workable solutions to human oppression. However, they are not candidates that seem par for the course in becoming leaders of nations.


Am I saying that all leaders of world nations are sinister, selfish and self indignant? No. Though a large of portion of them are. My inquiry is: Why do these patterns, throughout all time periods, lead towards the political victory of villiains? Why does it seem that evil triumphs over good instead of the anti-thesis?


Along with death (pardon the inexcusable pun) and taxes, maybe evil is the endpoint for all societies. If humble intelligent leaders are absent, sociopathic leaders will find way to take the reigns. If both types of government models are vacant, a society will live in despair, destitution and turmoil nonetheless.


Thus far I have purposely failed to mention Adolf Hitler, a horrible miscreant, whose fascination and obsession with war lead towards two phases history cannot forget: The Holocaust and World War II. Hitler was eschewed from this list of wicked leadership, simply because he was not a sociopath. In my observation of all of these characters, based on my personal research, I will make it clear, that as far I know, Hitler was psychopathic, not sociopathic.


Hitler did in fact care for the oppressed citizens of Germany, not just one who pandered for his own interests. Similar to Stalin, Hitler followed no dynasty lineage. Both were creators of their own ideology. Like the others mentioned, Hitler was a brutish beast who undermined many to aggrandize himself.


During World War II, Germany, Japan and Italy, were the trio of nations at the forefront of: The Axis of Evil. It wasn’t the nations, or even the oppressed citizens inhabiting them that were to blame. It is the Sociopathic leaders (and psychopathic as we now are aware) of the aforementioned nations, who are responsible for these labels.


It is true, by understanding what evil is : painful, terrible, unmentionable, horrific acts, to know that select members of the human race are accountable for it; though they may lack the culpability. It is also true that the world rotates, and that her axis is ultimately evil as well.


While I only mentioned scattered but relevant examples of Sociopathic Evil Men in World History, I could not possibly mention them all. The solution to this troubling pattern of satanic-like states of national operation is: to learn as much as we can, both about war and peace, such that we can obviate the re-emergence of Sociopathic monsters (and psychopathic) and their Machiavellian goals.




Note : I am not a psychologist or historian. I am a sociology major with a unique set of ideas and observations I have created, from the like of other sources.



Leave a comment