Love and Stalin


Purpose of the e-book




How I met your mother

Little known love stories

The Transhuman by Yurii Nikitin

Russian Spring by Norman Spinrad

Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev

Eugene Onegin by Alexander Pushkin

The Patricide by Alexander Kazbegi

Stalin’s secret love

The book of Daniel by E. L. Doctorow

Roadside picnic by the Strugatsky brothers


Purpose of the e-book

Hello, dear reader!


Love does not consist of gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction.


Antoine de Saint-Exupéry


Several wise people said that love is the most important part in the life of a human. What do you do, if that part of your life is broken, i. e. it doesn’t energize you as much as you think it should?


There may be several reasons for that and one of them is that you may take the notion of love too narrowly, like something that happens between a man, a woman and maybe their kids.


You may get a greater satisfaction, if you expand your love to other people as well and ideally – to the entire universe in all of its manifestations. The experience of our legendary ancestors supports this theory: There is something special about romantic relationships on the front lines of World War II, for example. Maybe it’s because they weren’t gazing at each other, but together looked into the yes of Nazis.


I argue that we should revive this approach to our love lives. In order to look good in the eyes of our partners, we need to look in the same direction, at the challenges before our societies and improve them at least to a small degree, at least in our small circles.


Do you like this idea?


If yes – great. Then, we will proceed in the following way: First, I will tell you why the standard approach to relationship building is wrong. Then, I give you several examples of little known love stories, which show some of the principles behind great relationships.


The best part starts at the end of the book. I mentioned above that in order to be happy in love, we need to look together in the same direction. Founders and early adopters of cults (think early Christians, Russian revolutionaries in the 1920es, young people in 1960es, modern Western Buddhists) had a shared, common mission and it was the fertile ground, on which their personal relationships flourished.


I think that we can create an idea worth spending your life on. And if you stay subscribed, you will receive several e-mails from me explaining, how exactly we can do it. If you like it (and my idea turns out to be good enough), we may start to work together on building a better future for the world and – as a consequence – getting better love lives.


So, let’s begin.




If you are reading love stories, chances are that you think your own love life can be improved. If you read a book about little known love stories, chances are that known faces of love don’t make it for you. So let’s start with the analysis of the usual relationship routine.


2 standard scenarios

There are two way, in which a relationship unfolds for most people:

1) Mutual Sympathy-Intimacy-Marriage route

2) Unrequited love


Positive scenario


The first, allegedly positive scenario runs like this:

1) Two people meet and are interested in each other.

2) They go to cinema, eat out and spend time in other activities to strengthen the relationship.

3) After some time, they get married.

That’s the positive scenario, when both people like each other. Unfortunately, more often than not, this scenario ends with a break-up because at least one of the parties didn’t love the other strong enough.


Negative scenario

That’s when the second scenario kicks in. If you are in love with some, who doesn’t reciprocate, you are supposed to do one of the following things:


A) Forget him or her.

B) Apply the FTOW/FTOM technique.

C) Fill the hole in your heart with material pleasures.

D) Go to a psychologist.


Let’s look at each of these options.




When someone recommends you to forget a person, whom you love, but can’t get, he or she assumes (whether he or she is aware of it or not) that


A) sexual partners are interchangeable,

B) you and your feelings are so shallow that you attracted to any pretty body and

C) in any situation of danger, if you have to choose between fight, flight or something else, you should always select “flight”.


When someone tells you to just forget a person you love, he or she assumes that there is no such thing as true love to a particular, unique human being. The very person, who recommends you to forget a loved one, wouldn’t even think of “just forgetting” your parents (brothers, sisters) in case the relationship with them doesn’t work out. Why? Because with relatives they accept the possibility that these people are unique to you and can’t be replaced with others.


But when it comes to intimate relationships, the average morons take on a radical consumerist attitude. They probably picture humans like mass-produced machines with standardized mating adapters in their genitals. The relationships for them are like cables, which are plugged in into those mating adapters of men and women. Now, when a loved one leaves, it works like this: John is connected to Mary. When Mary leaves (plugs out the cable from John’s adapter), John is supposed to find another woman (with performance characteristics similar to Mary’s) into whom he can plug in his cable. Note that in this model, only the adapter matter. It’s all about plugging in and plugging out of cables, and adepts of this view don’t even think of any higher, less tangible aspects of relationships. To them, any man or woman with sufficiently standardized adapter will do. Now they are even thinking of using androgynous mating adapters – they have the benefit of gender neutrality. Being bisexual increases your potentially installed base from one gender to two. What a marvel!


But if normal relationships suppose that partners are more or less interchangeable, then how can you even hope to find some special, much less unique? If they judge their men and women by their mating adapters (which are bound to be standardized by the laws of nature, you won’t see a dick in the form of a sailor’s knot, for example), how can they see the uniqueness in every person?


Science versus Activity


The funny thing is, those people are often fond of various self-help books that suggest to live in the moment as a recipe for happiness. What does “living in the moment” mean, applied to relationships? There used to be a Russian management guru, Georgii Petrovich Shchedrovitski, who argued that there are two fundamentally different kinds of knowledge work:


1) Science, which looks for sameness.

2) Activity, which looks for differences.


When a physicist investigates, how a set of balls falls towards the earth, he or she is interested in finding laws of nature, which work in as many cases as possible. His or her ideal is to detect universal laws of nature. Take gravity for example – it’s universal and describes entities as different as parachutists, spacecraft and flying cats. That’s science.


A juggler may know about the universal laws of gravity, but his focus is to apply them here and now, in an ever-changing situation and try to keep all balls moving. Every moment, the situation (location of the balls, his bodily configuration, outside distractions) changes, every moment is unique. That’s activity.


To succeed in activity, you need to live in the moment and pay attention to the unique characteristics of every moment.


When people claim that the only way to a happy life are canned relationships, they approach love with the vulgar scientific approach. I say “vulgar scientific” and not “scientific” because every good scientist knows that universal laws of nature describe only a tiny aspect of our volatile reality.


The proponents of consumerist relationships may claim that there is evidence that 80 % of people in bearable, but stable relationships live longer than loners looking for the perfect man or woman. There are many reasons, why it may be not wise to base your strategy on this and similar research:


1) Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. There simply may be no logical connection between two facts, even though the statistics suggests otherwise.


2) Even, if the longer age is indeed caused by stability of the consumerist relationships in 80 % of the cases, you still can fall into those 20 % and then the logic does not apply to you. How do you know, which part of the sample you are in?


FTOW/FTOM technique

[* *]

If you are too attached to your inaccessible object of desire, well-meaning morons may suggest you the FTOW (for men) or the FTOM (for women) technique. FTO means “Frontally integrate with ten/twenty/two hundred other women/men”. Technically, it can be compared to a denial of service attack on a computer system. This kind of attack involves sending so many requests to a server, until it breaks down.


Applied to people in love it means using your mating adapter very hard, until it gets tired. As we figured out earlier, proponents of a consumerist approach to love think that it’s the one and only part relevant for relationships. Hence, the attachment resides in that body part. If it gets very, very tired, some of its functionality will be disabled (like military airplanes can shut down some non-vital systems to save fuel) and if you are lucky, then the memory of your unfortunate love will be disabled as well.


This technique may work, if the person in question is dumb enough, but has several problems:


1) What if your attachment to a person involves more than just regular docking with your mating adapter?


2) There is an ethical problem, since you are using those ten-twenty-two-hundred temporary partners to solve your problems without giving them anything valuable in return. To most people, “valuable” means “lasting relationship”.


3) Too much intercourse without love may make it harder for you to fall in love. It’s like drinking wine on prescription. In some cases doctors prescribe their patients to drink alcohol, e. g. in order to get radionuclides out of the organism, or to prevent heart problems or for the purposes of disinfection. I’ve been told by people in these situations that you start to dislike the otherwise tasty alcohols the moment you have to drink them.


I’m not even talking about the danger of catching some sort of disease, if you aren’t picky enough in selection of your partners.


And again, this method presumes that you and your recovery victims are so shallow that the only thing they want is a series of one-night stands. It assumes that they don’t have any feelings and any longer-term plans. It assumes that they are not people, but animals.



[* *]

An alternative venue for recovering from an unfulfilling love affair is to get a lot of material enjoyment. Travel, good food, jumping with a parachute… or lying on the beach. This option actually works for many people, but again, not for all.


There are three problems with this method:


1) You may get used to fill the hole in your soul with material goods and start to confuse soul with belly. If you concentrate on eating, you may get fat and – as a consequence – become less confident.


2) If you concentrate on healthier forms of hedonism such as travel, you may get used to it and you won’t have an excuse to stop it. After some time you may start to think “I’m travelling, I’m having a good time, so what do I need a love partner for?”.


3) Your temper may not be suitable for this approach.


Some of us are just too active to lie on the beach all day. Ants in our pants don’t allow us to sit still knowing there are zillions of great things we could do instead. We hate to be passive (even at a beach), we need to do something for the sake of living our personality. No, we don’t have ADHD, we just look like it.


For those kind of folks, lying on the beach may make things worse. If you don’t do anything, your mind is likely to wander in memories, which hurt.


So, hedonism isn’t a solution for everybody, either.


When everything fails, you may consider going to a psychologist.


Psychologists and spiritual people

[* *]

First of all, let me say this: I don’t think anything is wrong with psychology or being spiritual. Psychology and spirituality are not the problem, moronism is.


Unfortunately, the majority of psychologists are like trained monkeys. Psychology has its roots in medicine and doctors’ education doesn’t exactly focus on independent, critical thinking. That’s one reason. The other one is the apophenia.


Let me explain you the difference between a classical way of thinking and the correct (technical) one. Imagine, a car is broken. To solve this problem, a classical thinking person asks questions like “What do I do, if my car doesn’t start?”. He or she will get some answers and apply the popular ones.


A person with functional logical thinking does it differently. First, he or she knows the difference between a symptom and real problem.


Car not driving is the symptom. There may be several problems causing that symptom, including, but not limited to


1) no fuel,

2) the parking brake is activated,

3) the ignition has a problem,

4) the engine has a problem,

5) you pushed the clutch pedal too hard or too soft,

6) the wrong gear is selected etc.


All these are hypotheses. You take each hypothesis (the car doesn’t drive because there is no fuel), design an experiment (look at the indicator to find out, if fuel is there or not) and confirm or reject a hypothesis based on its results.


When you’ve singled out the cause of the failure, you generate ideas, how to fix it, empirically test them, until the car works again.


What is the crucial difference between engineering a solution and getting it the classical way?


The engineered solution fits like a key to the unique lock of your situation. Imagine the problem like a lock. When you engineer a solution, you create a key, tailored to that lock.


When you do it the way most liberal arts people do, you get a bunch of keys (those recommended by authorities and being popular in for similar locks) and try to open that individual lock using them.


But as we figured out earlier, one and the same symptom may have different root causes. When two locks look very similar, it doesn’t mean that a key, which opens one lock will work on the other.


And that’s the problem: The vast majority of psychologists and spiritual people will try to help you out with a bunch of stereotypes including, but not limited to the already mentioned solutions (forgetting, engaging in purposefully temporary relationships, hedonism).


They don’t even try to do an in-depth analysis of why you feel bad. Finding out the real cause of pain as well as a cure for it is scary because, when you do it, you start to question the most fundamental beliefs, which guide your life. If some of them turn out to be false, you are left with nothing. Then you need to invent new, better beliefs and that’s what prevents most people (including psychologists and spiritual people) from asking the right questions and getting right answers.


But we are brave enough to become better lovers, therefore, I will give you some little known love stories for inspiration… but later. Right now, let’s look at some of the well-known love stories, which shape our ideas about relationships and are wrong.


[* *]


There are several things wrong with this fairy-tale. First of all, it suggests that a relationship, in which one party abuses the other is OK.


Let’s look at Cinderella from a realistic point of view: The stepmother humiliates Cinderella for a long time, while her father is watching and doing nothing about it. He is the first man she gets to know.


It’s totally reasonable that she holds a grudge against him, and because she doesn’t know other men yet, she is likely to project this concept to men in general.


In her family she didn’t have a chance to take revenge for her sufferings.


This changes when Prince Charming enters her life. It is likely that Cinderella will vent her anger on him and he won’t fight back because he is noble and such.


But this fairy-tale is deemed to have a happy ending. One partner suffering from another until his death, that’s a happy relationship?


Unfortunately, lots of people will agree. It’s not acceptable to humiliate a woman, but it is totally acceptable to treat a man badly, when he doesn’t deserve it. Look at the “Simpsons”, for example. There are three family men there:


1) Homer Simpson

2) Ned Flanders

3) Milhouse’s father

4) The cop


3 of them are idiots and losers (Homer, Milhouse’s father, the cop), one – a spiritual nut (Ned). This suggests that all normal, regular men are idiots and can be treated like dirt.


But this is not the only fault with Cinderella. Since she grew up in a suboptimal family, she is likely to have mounds of psychological problems. Then, Prince Charming appears and all of them are miraculously solved.


This doesn’t work in real life. Don’t get me wrong – I do think that a man can positively affect a woman’s psyche, but Cinderella needs a case worker, not a lover.


A woman, who grew up in a highly dysfunctional environment can recover and build a healthy family, if she builds a mixed-sex network of friends, wise people and role models (men and women, who already have a healthy relationship). It is essential that men are part of this network because that helps her overcome the tendency to project a bad behavior of one jerk to all men.


Imagine, Cinderella has built such network and there is one man, who really likes her and wants her to be happy (including relationships), but is also realistic.


In this case, he will probably do his best to show her by his example that there are nice men out there, too. To the outsider, the process may look like usual friendship or flirting: Two people go to cafés, watch movies, walk in the parks etc.


But if that amateur therapist is got balls, his actions will be precisely calculated to achieve the best possible impact on that woman. For example, sanitized speech. He won’t curse in her presence, even if that’s part of his personality. He won’t go with her to movies about bad relationships because she knows enough about bad ones, and too little about good ones. No “Romeo and Juliet”, no “Anna Karenina”.


He will pay attention that she gets as many positive emotions as possible with him, because the purpose of the whole thing is to convince her subconsciousness that it is possible to spend a lot of time with a man such that nothing bad or scary happens.


Another aspect, which is vital in this situation, is that the man must not do any advances. That’s another signal you should send to a “broken” woman: You are interesting to me as a person, not as a sexual object. I’m not after your mating adapter. She won’t get this message directly. But if a man communicates with her regularly, obviously likes her, but makes no attempts to get her into the bed, then there must be something non-sexual about her, which makes him spend a significant amount of resources on her. If this recovery process happens over a long period of time (3-6 months), then sooner or later, she will get this message. And since she discovered it herself (and was not told by anybody), she will believe it.


Now the big question – why can’t Prince Charming do all these activities, help her recover and then become her lover?


Because the roles of a case worker in disguise and a lover are mutually exclusive. When you want to become a woman’s lover, it’s vital that you show all relevant parts of your personality to her, including those she might not like. So, if cursing is part of you, she should know about it, damn it!


Another thing is healthy aggressiveness. Men always fought battles and it won’t change in foreseeable future. The only difference is that in earlier times the crucial battles involved physical effort, and now the battles are intellectual. But they are battles nonetheless. The essence of masculinity is the ability to do what your intuition tells you, even if everybody else says you are crazy. In other words – you need balls to have the courage to do what you feel is right without being rewarded for it.


There are many examples, when society depends on men acting like men:


1) Founding new companies, from Google and Facebook to your local hot dog stand.


2) Making scientific breakthroughs because any great discovery is resisted by the army of millions of morons with degrees, even if your invention saves thousands of life and costs very little (I’m talking about Ignaz Semmelweis, who drastically reduced the mortality in maternal wards by washing hands before operations).


3) Any form of art because when you create a work of art (like this little e-book) there is absolutely no guarantee that anyone will consume it, much less like it.


4) Any form of innovation because doing things differently requires an additional effort from other members of the organization and people are lazy (hence they will try to sabotage change, even if it helps the organization).


When women are attracted to ballsy men, they do so because it increases the chances of the society for survival (whether they realize it or not).


If you want to win a woman’s heart, it makes sense to show her that you are courageous, that you can stay true to your beliefs, when everybody else (incl. her) says you’re nuts. Even if she disagrees with you, chances are that she’ll like your gutsiness and a bit of friction between the partners is OK because it produces the fire, which powers the relationship.


But this applies only to those situations, where you are (or want to be) the lover. In a therapeutic dating setting you don’t want to make sudden movements, you don’t want to show the woman being treated your rough edges. She is simply not ready for that and these maneuvers may scare her off.


Therefore, the man, who helps a Cinderella overcome her aversion against men will be a different person from the one she marries.


But wait, there is more! This is another aspect, which the Cinderella fairy-tale got wrong. In the fairy-tale, it is the Prince Charming, who picks Cinderella. The man selects the woman.


All women, who managed to overcome bad childhood experiences, did it differently. I always had the impression that they had an idea of whom they want to be with, and then they found a man, who satisfied their criteria (passed their screening process). Finally, they made him fall in love with her.


You see the difference? In the fairy-tale the man selects the woman, in reality it’s vice versa (although the man may think that he did the first step and that he is in charge).


But the worst part of Cinderella is that it implants into the reader the idea that laziness pays off. Don’t do anything, just wait for the Prince Charming to discover you. The majority of people are lazy already and it only reinforces their tendency to do nothing and rely on luck.


Speaking of laziness and what awful deeds it causes man to make. In Tsarist Russia over many generations the elite was lazy, reluctant to adapt the government system to changes in the society. Instead of treating the people, who produced their wealth (primarily peasants) better, they wasted their material and intellectual resources on balls and shallow intellectual debates. Remember – at those times the major product, which fed Russian society were agricultural products (there was almost no industry) and the peasants, who produced it, generated all the wealth.


Not all Russians were lazy, of course, but the majority of the nobility, including the last Czar of Russia, Nicholas II. The problem with him, his associates and people, who admire him then and now was simple – they were all idiots.


Even though the peasants produced the only goods that Russia could sell profitably, they didn’t see much of those profits and lived in extreme poverty. In the second half of the 19th century things started to change. The peasants were liberated. Until 1861 they were basically slaves (serfs). After the so-called Emancipation reform of 1861, those peasants got the right to have a small piece of land, produce food on it and sell it.


It is interesting that at the roughly the same time, in the US there was a war on the same issue – slavery. Russian peasants were in a position similar to Afro-American slaves in the US, with some minor differences:


1) In Russia, slaves and their owners were of the same ethnicity, while in the US they had different racial origins. However, this doesn’t mean that Russian serfs were treated better than American slaves.


2) The war caused by different opinions on slavery happened in the US in 1861-1865 and in Russia 56 years later, in 1917.


3) In the US, proponents of slavery were concentrated in one geographical area (southern states), while in Russia proponents and opponents of slavery were found in every region.


Essentially, both the American Civil war and the Russian Civil war was fought between


A) those, who regarded slaves as human beings (Unionists in the US, Bolsheviks and their supporters in Russia) and


B) those, who would like to continue to use the slaves as wealth-generating animals (the Confederates in the US, the majority of the nobility in Russia).


Or – we could say that in both cases the future (Unionists and Bolsheviks) fought with the remnants of the past (Confederates and the nobility).


In both cases, the more human side eventually won. The aftermath of the Russian Civil war was more violent, though. The former slaveowners didn’t want to adapt and share their pie with those, who produced it. Many of them emigrated to the Western countries and never understood or admitted that their personal tragedy was caused, in part, by their attitude towards slaves.


After all, they could have prevented the uprising of the Bolsheviks by slowly modifying the system and making the life of the peasants more human. They had both the material and intellectual resources to do so. But laziness, worst enemy of mankind, prevented them from adapting the governance system in Russia before it broke down under the pressure of external events (loss in the World War I) and its inherent obsolescence (too many social groups in Russia wanted to get rid of Tsarism in 1917).


But instead of doing the hard, boring work of re-engineering Russian society, they preferred to waste their time and money on balls and travels across Europe.


After the Russian revolution most of them were forced to emigrate. One of these people was the writer Vladimir Nabokov, seemingly a descendant of those idlers. And one of his most popular books is also targeted at idlers, Russian or not.


I’m speaking of “Lolita”, a novel about a child molester. I won’t tell you the plot here because it doesn’t matter. Enough to say that the protagonist of the novel is an adult man, who molests a 12-year old girl. When she grows up, she undergoes several problematic, highly dysfunctional relationships. Probably because of the harm done to her by the protagonist.


In any literary work worth reading, we sympathize with the characters. In this case, if you read the book, you are likely to sympathize with a criminal. It’s fascinating sometimes, how otherwise sensible men and women spend lots of time reading about perversions of various kinds. Not only Lolita, but also books like the Perfume novel by Patrick Süskind (story about a serial murderer).


While the book in itself is worthless, it makes sense to think about why many of people are attracted to books about perverts. There are at least two reasons for this.




First of all, we are constantly being brainwashed by literary idiots that crap like Lolita is great because it’s a classic. And why are they saying it? Because they were told so by the authorities. That’s again the ugly face of liberal arts way of thinking – accepting the common nonsense without questioning it.


Mental enslavement

[* *]

The second reason of why many people like these perverted stories is their laziness. Imagine some office worker, who hates his or her job, but is too lazy to do something about it (like changing the profession). Let’s also assume that he or she doesn’t have a fulfilling love life.


In this situation, he or she has two choices: The hard one and the easy one.


The hard and rewarding one is to fix your life so that it is exciting again. Maybe change the job, maybe find an interesting hobby (which would make the boring job bearable), maybe engage in altruistic activities (when you give away love unconditionally, you may sometimes get love for yourself, also unconditionally).


All these things require effort, since you have to try several ideas, until one of them really works (spoiler: 8 out of 10 ideas you try will suck and it’s OK – you only need one good to succeed).


It’s hard, because you have to put effort, which may or may not, result in benefits you are going after. That’s a risk and this makes this approach hard.


The easy choice is to live somebody else’s exciting life instead of your own boring one. Watching porn and reading perverted love stories belong to this category. It’s this mental masturbating of people, who have too little energy to change their real life, which drives the sales of Lolita, The Perfume and comparable crap.


Can you imagine Steve Jobs or Elon Musk watching porn or reading stories about child molesters? No, they are too busy living their dreams in real life.


If you live your real life, you try out different activities, until you discover one or more of them as your passion. It’s like talking with many women, finding the one and then make yourself good enough for her. Woman, in this case, represents the purpose of your life. When you implement that purpose or purposes, you – like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk – are simply too busy to be interested in looking at other people’s perverted fantasies.


People, who have too little energy or courage, don’t even try to find their passion and win her heart. Instead of loving the real life, they buy themselves substitutes and jack off to them. Lolita, The perfume and the porn are nothing more than stimuli, which lazy people use for masturbation. The latter produces no tangible improvement in anybody’s life and therefore is not art.


True art makes people change the world, at least a small part of it, at least try it. Works like Lolita make you waste time in destructive fantasies. Don’t read it.

How I met your mother

The popular TV series “How I met your mother” is a tutorial for family-building in disguise. There are several characters (Ted, Robin, Barney, Marshall and Lily). The core of the plot is Ted’s love of Robin. They get together, break up, get together again several times. Ted really loves Robin, she loves him to a slightly lesser degree, but they always find a reason to break up.


Ted is personifies unconditional love without balls. When Robin and his friend Barney get together, he helps them build a good relationship. On the flip side Ted is a classical “nice guy”, used and abused by his friends and Robin. Note that this is detrimental not only to him, but also to Robin.


When he gets to know that Barney and Robin become a couple, he has two choices:


1) Fight for his love and prevent Barney from marrying Robin.


2) Practice what seems to be unconditional love and help them half-ass their relationship.


He goes for the second option and it turns out to be a bad one. Barney is a bad husband, their marriage doesn’t work out and eventually they file a divorce. At that time, Ted has already married someone else, so even after the divorce Ted and Robin can’t unite. Ted and Robin get together eventually, but only after years (or is it decades?) of being torn apart.


This could have been prevented, if Ted listened more to his intuition (that he would take better care of Robin than Barney, to whom she is just one of many affairs) than to the common nonsense.

Little known love stories

But we’ve seen enough of bad love stories. Let’s turn our attention to good ones, those, which can provide inspiration and give ideas on how to make our love lives better.

The Transhuman by Yurii Nikitin

A moment will come, when science becomes so powerful that it will be able to re-generate a dead organism… when it will be possible to reconstruct a human from the elements of his life.

[_ _]

Leonid Krasin, 1921


Vladimir is a technical university dropout, who works as a service man of household appliances. He isn’t particularly bright.


Caroline is the girlfriend of Vladimir. She is a scientist at the astronomical calculation centre. She is slightly older than he.


In June 2006 she dies from leucemia.


He doesn’t want to accept her death and decides to find ways to raise her from the dead. First, he attempts to use cryonics to preserve Caroline’s body until the time, when technology will be advanced enough to revive her. He contacts the representative of the only cryonics company in Russia (probably KrioRus), but they tell him that the storage facility won’t be completed until the next year.


He decides to prolong his life. He takes dietary supplements, implants chips into his body. After a while, he becomes a successful manager and later – a renowned scientist.


In 2118 he manages to raise Caroline from the dead.


This novel looks like a modern “Orpheus and Eurydice” to me. Instead of magic, the protagonist uses science to re-unite with his lost love. What makes this novel exciting is that this story may become realistic in our lifetime. To some degree, it is realistic already – if a person dies and gives you consent to deep-freeze her or his body, you can do that. There are at least two cryonics companies in the world: Alcor Life Extension Foundation in the US and KrioRus in Russia.


Even though Caroline appears only briefly at the start and the end of the novel, it’s she, who allows Vladimir to rise from a nobody to a super-human, who managed to bend the laws of nature. Effective self-development (when you become an order-of-magnitude better person than you were) requires lot of effort and lot of time (couple of years, if you are a genius, decades for the rest of us). There are few things, which can make a man invest all his time into this over a long period of time. Love to a special woman is one of them.


The conclusion of the story: Love and science are stronger than death.

Russian Spring by Norman Spinrad

The plot of this book plays at the end of 1980es in a post-Cold war world, which took a different turn than reality. In the alternative world of the Russian Spring, the Soviet Union did not collapse in the 1990es, but instead became a semi-capitalist society (like China) with focus on high-tech. Half-private Soviet companies, especially in the aviation and space industries are highly successful and have branch offices all over the world, including Europe. The pinnacle of the Soviet technological thought are cosmograds – large space stations (like the ISS) floating above the Earth.


At the same time, the United States become more and more militarized.


During that time Jerry Reed, an American aerospace engineer, visits Paris – he is invited there by a headhunter of the European Space Agency. In Europe, Jerry is offered to work on a new space vehicle. He can’t have that in the US, where the majority of the space program is used for military purposes.


In Paris he meets Sonya Gagarin – a young Russian woman, who works in Paris for a Soviet trading company. He immediately falls in love with her, accepts ESA’s offer and stays in Paris. In the subsequent years, the couple goes through several adventures such as


  • birth of two children (one of which takes American side in the following conflict between the US and Europe, and the other – the Soviet one),
  • Jerry’s work on a long-term mission space vehicle,
  • his disability caused by an accident,
  • divorce and later
  • re-unification of the entire family.


One layer of this love story is a romantic idyl – what can be better than doing science (or engineering) and be loved by a great woman at the same time? Another part of the love story (and that’s is an unusual one) is that both the man and the woman are strong personalities – in the novel they go against the stream several times (e. g. when Jerry starts to work for ESA). Third aspect of the love story is the hint that true love is hardened by hardships.


At the end of the story, Sonya, a very successful manager, goes back to Jerry, who is a broken invalid at that time. She certainly could have found a man, who has better external parameters. She chooses Jerry probably for two reasons – first, she seems to really love him. Second – I estimate that at least two decades have passed between their initial encounter, divorce and re-unification. In those two decades Sonya probably learned a very important lesson, which usual people don’t.


She learned to judge people not on their exterior, but on parameters, which matter.


Maybe Sonya follows the hidden advice from a children’s poem, which every child in Russia used to know:

On the floor lies tiny Teddy

Half a paw is gone already.

He is tattered, torn, and lame.

Yet I love him just the same.


Agniia Barto, Teddy

When she re-marries Jerry, he is tattered, torn and lame. That’s fact of life – many of will end up in that stage simply because when we get older, we get uglier and grumblier than we were at the peak of our lives. Someone else’s Teddy may get a disease, which hurts the people surrounding him or her as hard as the patient himself/herself (e. g. cancer). Other teddies have traumas making them cheat their loved ones with jerks of both sexes. There are also Teddies addicted to drugs and alcohol. And, of course, some Teddies don’t reciprocate our feelings for them.


Their existence gives us koan-like questions:


1) Should I try to repair this very talented, but broken person?

2) Should I invest my resources into trying to cure this alcoholic?

3) Should I stay with that cancer patient?

4) Should I endure the abuse of the only person I happen to love?


Questions like these can’t be answered logically, that’s what makes them tough and beautiful. If you get rid of a problematic lover, and she overcomes her problems and gets wise in the process, you may regret it. If you spend decades with an alcoholic, and he doesn’t want to get cured for real, you may regret it. As we figured out before, consumerist psychologists provide no help in situations like these.


Sonya decides in favor of love and wins – Jerry may be broken physically, but didn’t give up on himself.


But love story is only one layer of the Russian Spring. The other side of this remarkable novel is that it shows how the Cold War should have ended. At that time the USSR has accumulated tremendous potential in terms of science and technology. These assets were highly valuable for the humanity, partly because the approaches the Russians and the American use are very different. Look at the Vostok and the Mercury space vehicles. Both have the same purpose (manned suborbital flight), both were designed at the same time and both operate under the same laws of nature.


But they look completely different. If you look at the vehicles, which Russians and Americans use to get to the International Space Station (Space Shuttle and the Soyuz family), the difference in the whole approach is even more obvious.


And as the experience with the ISS shows, both approaches are highly valuable. Without one of the sides, the ISS wouldn’t be possible. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russian space program managed to survive, at least partly. But much more scientific projects haven’t. The Buran vehicle (reusable Russian spacecraft similar to Space Shuttle) was cancelled, for example. Hadn’t it been curbed, who knows – maybe Buran could replace the crashed Space Shuttles.


Look at the image below.



It shows the number of patents issued before (1990) and after the break-up of the Soviet Union in Russia. The number of patents is an estimate for how many inventions are made in a year. It is obvious that after the break-up of the USSR the humanity lost a strong idea-generating engine. That’s how the Cold War ended in real life.


Russian Spring shows an alternative scenario, which would be better for the humanity. In that alternative scenario, the USSR disarms and focuses on those markets, on which Russia can compete with the rest of the world. So what types of products can Russia produce in a competitive manner?


Let’s first see, what goods cannot be produced in Russia. Russia is different from most of its Western competitors in that it is located in a harsher climate. For this reason, almost every product manufactured in Russia costs more than it would cost elsewhere. The centers of Russian civilization, Moscow and St. Petersburg, are have a climate comparable to that of Alaska. This means that people have to buy warmer clothing (as opposed to Austria, for example, where you can wear the same jacket all year and you won’t get sick) and buildings need to have thicker walls to preserve warmth.


This makes mass-production of industrial goods difficult in Russia – it’s simply cheaper to place a factory in some Asian country. Also, the Russians aren’t good at following rules. So, mass production of any kind can’t be a driver of the Russian economy.


Agricultural products are also not an option because in the cold climate of Russia, you can’t grow as many food as you can do in Spain or Greece.


The only area, in which Russia is capable of world-class achievements, are unique (not mass-produced) products with a large scientific component. The Russians are incapable of producing a decent (compared to Germans) car, but the Mir space station is a competitive product. The now forgotten passenger aircraft Tu-154 was one of the best at its time. Russia is one of the few countries with its own search engine (Yandex) and its own social network (VKontakte), comparable in quality to the world-leaders Google and Facebook.


If Russia became a giant Silicon Valley, it would benefit both the Russians (because of sustainable profits) and the humanity as a whole. The humanity would benefit because the more approaches a civilization uses for its technology, the greater the chance that one of them will be good enough. Russians can build space stations, but can’t fly to the Moon. The Americans can fly to the Moon, but can’t build space stations as effectively (cheaply) as the Russians. If both of them work in high-tech, we’ll have both settlements on the Moon and affordable space stations.


But if the Russians stop inventing, the humanity as a whole will lose the results of their talent and their unique approach to technology. This is what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union – its new leaders worked hard to destroy the scientific potential of the Russians.


The Russian spring describes an alternative. And I think it’s not outdated. Sure, the Cold War of 1946-1991 ended as it ended, but now (June 2015) we may face the start of another one. Wouldn’t it be great, if the final outcome of the Cold War of 2014-? would be similar to the one described in The Russian Spring?

Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev

Arkady Kirsanov, a recent university graduate, visits his father in his estate together with his friend Bazarov. They call on their friends as well as Bazarov’s parents, who all live nearby.


Bazarov is a nihilist and challenges the views of both the liberal father of Arkady Kirsanov, and the more traditional, Russian Orthodox way of life of his own parents. He strongly believes in the power of materialistic mind and considers it a solution to all important problems.


Here are some quotes from the book, which give an impression what type of person Bazarov is:


  • A good chemist is twenty times more valuable than any poet.] [
  • Nature is not a temple, but a workshop and the man is a worker there.] [
  • Look what I’m doing: There is empty space in my suitcase and I put hay there. Same thing with the suitcase of our lives – regardless of what we stuff it with, it must not be empty.] [
  • Rafael isn’t worth a red cent, and our Russian painters are even less valuable.] [
  • We sit in the mud my friend and reach for the stars.] [
  • I don’t see why it’s impossible to express everything that’s on one’s mind.] [
  • It’s all romanticism, nonsense, rottenness, art.] [
  • So many memories and so little worth remembering, and in front of me — a long, long road without a goal…] [
  • What’s important is that twice two is four and all the rest’s nonsense.] [
  • I look up to heaven only when I want to sneeze._]


But the best quote is the following, which Bazarov said talking about a beautiful woman:


What a magnificent body, how I should like to see it on the dissecting table.


Before I tell you the rest of the story, let’s put Bazarov into a modern context. After all, why should you care about some students and land owners from a country you barely know, especially if it happened more than 150 years ago?


As with any good book, the decorative part of the story is only used to convey timeless messages.


Replace 19th-century Russia with California of modern day and Bazarov with a guy like Sheldon Cooper. Aren’t there lot of people, who deny the existence of anything relevant, which is beyond measurement with our current technology? Aren’t there enough people, who truly believe that mind is equal to brain and there isn’t anything more to a human?


Or replace that setting with the post-war Soviet Union. Here again, the demand for skilled technicians and scientists drove the idea that the humanities are useless. Nowadays that same idea wears attractive clothes of TV shows “The Big Bang Theory” and “Silicon Valley”, whose heroes are all techies. It seems that there is no place for poets in the modern world.


To some degree, Bazarov is a 19th-century Sheldon Cooper without the Asperger’s.


But let’s get back to Bazarov. During his stay in the region of Arkady’s father he falls in love with one woman, Madame Odintsova. She is an intellectual like him and he immediately falls in love with her, but is rejected.


He can’t get over it, loses concentration during an autopsy, cuts himself and gets sick from blood poisoning. Madame Odintsova arrives at his deathbed one day before his death.


What’s the meaning of this story line?


The humanities strike back. Bazarov’s materialistic view is vulnerable to such common thing as affection and/or love. A normal woman (Madame Odintsova may be smart and attractive, but by no means super-human) manages to disrupt Bazarov’s ideosphere. His denial of non-materialist, hardly measureable, but still important parts of life eventually kills him.


As you probably noticed, all love stories described so far are related to the world, in which they operate. So let’s explore, how the main message of Fathers and sons works today. In his book Blink: The power of thinking without thinking, describes an experiment performed by the Pentagon in 2002, which can be described as a battle between modern Bazarov and modern Madame Odintsova, a battle between ultra-rational and pragmatic approach to life.


Millenium Challenge 2002 was probably the most advanced, most expensive and most realistic war game ever developed by mankind. It was a game between the blue and the red team. The blue team represented the United States with all its military might. The red team represented the troops of a rogue military commander somewhere in the Persian Gulf. He was supported by several religious and ethnic groups, harbored various terrorist organizations and was radially anti-American.


Both teams used totally different approaches to decision-making.


Malcolm Gladwell writes:


Blue Team was given greater intellectual resources than perhaps any army in history. JFCOM (Joint Forces Command, D. P.) devised something called Operational Net Assessment, which was a formal decision-making tool that broke the enemy down into a series of systems – military, economic, social, political – and created a matrix showing how all those systems were interrelated and which of the links among the systems were the most vulnerable.

[_ _]

Blue Team’s commanders were also given a tool called Effects-Based Operations, which directed them to think beyond the conventional military method of targeting and destroying an adversary’s military assets. They were given a comprehensive, real-time map of the combat situation called Common Relevant Operational Picture (CROP). They were given a tool for joint interactive planning. They were given an unprecedented amount of information and intelligence from every corner of the US government and a methodology that was logical and systematic and rational and rigorous. They had every toy in the Pentagon’s arsenal.


The philosophy of the blue team was that given sufficient information, it is possible to make right decisions in a battle using pure logic.


The leader of the red team, Lieutenant General Paul van Riper, had a different approach. Based on his own experience in Vietnam, as well as books on complexity theory in his library, he was convinced that war was inherently chaotic and unpredictable. He also opposed the approach of the blue team as overly slow and rational. In other words he believed that in the uncertainty of a fight, guts were better guides than even the most advanced planning techniques.


The game started when the blue team put tens of thousands troops into the Persian Gulf, placed an aircraft carrier battle group close to Red Team’s land and issued an ultimatum, one point of which was the demand to surrender.


Again a quote from the book:


They (the Blue Team, D. P.) acted with utter confidence, because their Operational Net Assessment matrixes told them, where Red Team’s vulnerabilities were, what Red Team’s next move was likely to be, and what Red Team’s range of options was. But Paul van Riper did not behave as the computers predicted.


When the Red Team didn’t respond to the ultimatum, the Blue Team knocked out Red Team’s microwave towers and cut its fiber-optics lines. They assumed that now the Red Team would use satellite communications and cell phones, which the Blue team could easily eavesdrop on.


Instead, Red Team used couriers on motorcycles for exchanging information in a cheap and fast-enough way. This reaction surprised the Blue Team.


When it disabled Red Team’s air traffic control systems, it expected their planes not to fly. Again, it was surprised, when the aviation of Red Team continued to operate – using lighting systems instead of radio, like the days of World War II.


But the greatest surprise to the Blue Team occurred on day 2:


On the second day of the war, he (Van Riper, D. P.) put a fleet of small boats in the Persian Gulf to track the ships of the invading Blue Team navy. Then, without warning, he bombarded them in an hour-long assault with a fusillade of cruise missiles. When Red Team’s surprise attack was over, sixteen American ships lay at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Had Millenium Challenge been a real war instead of just an exercise, twenty thousand American servicemen and women would have been killed before their own army had even fired a shot.

[_ _]

In this war game, gutsy underdog Van Riper (leader of the Red Team) defeated the much more powerful American military, who relied on logical algorithms.


Note that this simulation is (according to my knowledge) the most realistic war simulation in history. Whenever one of the teams fired a missile or launched an aircraft, the computer simulated the results of those actions so precisely that the Blue and Red teams in the simulation room couldn’t tell the difference between an actual launch. This means that in the most realistic military simulation in the world guts beat the hell out of vulgar rationalists. Van Riper is an artist, while his Blue team adversaries are mere appendages to machines and committees. Blue team symbolizes the too logical Bazarov, while Van Riper represents those many underdogs, whose main chance for survival are their guts.

Eugene Onegin by Alexander Pushkin

They say, geek is the new sexy. They say, one day, nerds will be much more popular with women that leather-jacket wearing testosterone monkeys. They say, some time geeks will dominate the world, including but not to limited to women. This revolution has started to happen already and one of the reasons the geeks will ultimately kick ass in relationships is because they respect women (the elite of the geeks at least) more than normal men. It’s one of the reasons, why the future belongs to them. I think, one day we will be able to substitute humans in non-creative jobs such as construction, car mechanics and similar by robots. Then, we’ll be able to kill all unnecessary men and leave the world (and the women) in the gentle hands of the remaining geeks. Just kidding :)


Honestly, I’m sick and tired of books, which advise men, how to become jerks the women love. Yes, I know that some sick women love men, who abuse them, but do I want be together with such a weirdo? Do I want to trust the psyche of my kids to her?


Besides, converting to jerkdom sounds like a bad deal to me. In millions of years, I was evolving from fish to monkey and then to human. These books tell me that in order to win the heart of a woman, I need to become a monkey again. I don’t think so.


Alexander Pushkin, the great Russian poet, anticipated this change in his novel in verse “Eugene Onegin”. Before we proceed, I want to explain to you several things, which make this work of literature remarkable.


For starters, this is one of the few classics of Russian literature with a happy end. Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina kills herself, most Chekhov’s play end tragically (with or without corpses) and virtually every major Dostoyevsky’s book revolves around someone being killed.


Second distinguishing feature is that despite the happy end, this novel isn’t boring. This is in part because (similar to Goethe’s Faust) it contains a myriad of verbal gems.


But they are hard to translate to English, therefore we’ll concentrate on the plot. It starts with Eugene Onegin, a Saint Petersburg dandy, meeting Tatiana Larina. Eugene is a 26 year old, wealthy, arrogant and narcissistic fella.


Tatiana Larina, 9 years his junior, is one of those great women, who don’t know how great they are… and therefore are likely to fall in love with jerks like Onegin. She writes him a long letter, in which she explains her feelings.


Onegin doesn’t write back, and when they meet in person, he does the worst thing you can possible do to a person, who loves you. He says to Tatiana that they can just stay friends.


Onegin’s wrongdoings don’t end with this. He gets involved with a fight with Lensky, fiancé of Tatiana’s sister. Lensky challenges Onegin to a duel, in which Onegin kills him. How wonderful! He broke the heart of one sister and killed the husband in spe of another.


But some remnants of ubuntu awaken in Onegin and he goes abroad to forget the distress of these events.


After several years he returns to Saint Petersburg and visits one of the most prestigious balls. There, he notices a woman, who is always the center of attention. In that dancing queen he recognizes Tatiana, whom he treated so badly earlier.


He writes several letters to her, but now it’s her turn to not respond (but, hey, at least she doesn’t say the evil f word and by “f” I mean “let’s just be friends”). When he eventually manages to see her, she tells him that even though she still loves him, she is smart enough not let some asshole screw up her life.

The Patricide by Alexander Kazbegi

The plot of The Patricide plays in the 19th century Georgia (the country, not the state). A young couple, Iago and Nunu, wants to marry. Nunu is a de facto orphan – her mother is dead and her father is being searched by the police for killing a local civil servant, when he attempted to rape his wife. Nunu lives with her uncle and his wife.


Girgola, a local policeman wants Nunu to marry his brother. Her uncle and his wife know that Nunu loves Iago, but ultimately give in for two reasons. First, Girgola gives them a lot of money and second they fear that if they refuse, Girgola will abuse his administrative powers against them.


Nunu says she’d rather die than marry anyone except Iago. He proposes her to escape, she agrees, but Iago is caught by Girgola on his way home. Thereafter, Girgola manipulates his boss into accusing Iago with a crime he didn’t commit. Iago is arrested.


Thereafter, Girgola and his accomplices attack Nunu, while she is going for a walk with other women. Koba, a boyfriend of one of them is nearby, hears the cries and attacks Girgola in order to save Nunu. He kills one of Girgola’s men, but they manage to capture her nonetheless. Girgola and his brother force Nunu to go with them into a fort in the mountains. She still doesn’t want to do anything neither with Girgola, nor with his brother. Both of them try to break her spirit by beating her. Finally, Girgola sends his brother home and promises to “convince” Nunu to become his wife.


Left alone, Girgola confesses to Nunu that he loves her, and when she refuses, again beats her, until she passes out. He rapes her, while she is unconscious. When she wakes up and understands, what happened, she tries to kill herself.


After that incident, Girgola asks one of his relatives to take care of Nunu. That old lady feels compassion with her and after a while wishes to set Nunu free.


Koba and his friends manage to get to the prison, where Iago is held captive and to liberate him. Then, they go to the fort, where Nunu is held captive and persuade the old lady to help them free Nunu. She agrees and Iago, Nunu and Koba re-unite. All three of them must leave Georgia: Iago is a fugitive now, Nunu is being searched by Girgola and Koba killed one of his men. They decide to go to Vladikavkaz, a town in North Ossetia, where Nunu’s father probably is.


They actually manage to get there, but one of the people, who helped them, decided to rat them out to Girgola in order to get money and privileges. Girgola, with the help of his boss and accomplices surrounds the hotel, where Iago, Koba and their friends live, and attack them. All of them except Koba, are killed.


In the same night, Girgola kills Nunu’s father and stages it so that the authorities believe that he was killed by Nunu. The court decides to exile her to Siberia and dies, when she is put on pillory. The day thereafter, Koba kills Girgola and his boss.


I like this story for several reasons. Its protagonist, Koba ruins his life in order to save the love of his friends Iago and Nunu. By killing Girgola’s accomplice, he makes it impossible for himself to enjoy love with his girlfriend. Koba sacrifices his “little human happiness” for the matter of principle.


The story unfolds in 19th century Caucasus. At that time, it’s independent, but it’s clear to all parties that it won’t stay that for long. If Russia hadn’t seized that region, Turkey, Britain or France would. I have no data about scientific evidence, whether the peoples there would be better off, if that regions wouldn’t become Russian.


I asked this one Chechen in a private conversation and he told me that there is absolutely no reason to believe, that life of Caucasians would be significantly different, if it would be occupied by the British, Turks or the French (instead of the Russians). There is no indication that their rule would be any more humane than those of Russians (after all, we all have seen the “humaneness” of Western powers in their colonies).


This aspect of the characters’ lives is fixed. But their reaction to it is not.


Their behavior can be divided in two categories:


1) Those, who adapt themselves to their oppressors.


2) Those, who fight the system.


In the novel, most Chechens are pictured as carriers of the second approach.


There is a famous proverb in Russia. I heard people saying that it originated in the Caucasus. Others claim it was created by the Russians and is one of the things that define a Russian. It goes like this:


It’s better to die in standing than to live on the knees.


Most Chechens and most Russians like this proverb and in this respect they both contradict the Western doctrine. Western people think that the human life is the highest good and it is right to sacrifice other, more abstract ideas to save it.


The moment a man accepts human life as the highest worth, he turns into a faggot.


Wait a minute. Did I say „faggots“ ? We need to clarify something here. By „faggots“ I mean emasculated men, men incapable of doing and saying what they feel they ought to do and say. 99 % of them are straight, so don’t think that I’m using „faggot“ as a pejorative term for homosexuals. I know that lot of heterosexual men are faggots in this sense. I can’t say anything about gay men because I never discussed such issues with one.


A man knows that his life is less worth than lives of some other people, such as women, old people and children. Not because it’s noble, but because the society needs future (in form of children), people, who can take care of them (women) and knowledge of the past (old people). A man is someone, who can sacrifice his well-being (incl. his life) in the present for the well-being of other people in future. For a man, not his own life, but the prosperity of the people (defined as the totality of dead, living and unborn) is the highest worth. A faggot covers his ass, a man acts long-term. Stand on the knees and get dominated by the stronger enemy helps you survive short-term. Sticking to your principles helps survive your tribe long-term, possibly at the expense of your life. Russia was able to defend itself from the Nazis partly because there were lot of people of various ethnicities (including, but not limited, to Russians and Chechens), who were willing to die in standing for the freedom of their children and grandchildren.


Koba does whatever he can to help Iago and Nunu, and when everything fails (Iago is killed, Nunu dies from stress), he does a seemingly irrational action – he kills Girgola and his boss. On the surface it looks like plain old revenge.


Faggots of both sexes will tell you that revenge doesn’t make sense, that it only increases bad Karma on your side and that it won’t resurrect the dead.


But for a man, Koba’s last deed in the novel makes perfect, long-term sense. Iago and Nunu are dead, but they aren’t the last lovers to suffer from a dehumanizing Tsarist regime. He has to choices:


1) Swallow their death and do nothing.

2) Kill Girgola and his boss.


If he chooses the first option, Girgola, his boss and their successors will think it’s OK to destroy lives of ordinary people. If he kills them, their successors get a chance of learning their lesson – don’t fuck with ordinary people, because even if you kill them, sooner or later a brave Koba will come and kill you. You can’t neither scare, nor buy him, because he already lost everyone dear and – contrary to the faggots – only can win, even if he dies in the process. Such people are dangerous for the status quo and the servants of the latter work hard to keep their number as small as possible.


Koba’s revenge now can prevent bloodshed in the future, provided that the successors of Girgola and his boss learn. History showed that they didn’t. They continued to oppress people all across Russia (not only in Georgia and Chechnya, but in the entire Russian Empire), until the latter couldn’t endure it no more. The resulting uprisings wiped away Girgola and his colleagues, and after lot of bloodshed a regime was established, which was order of magnitudes better for the majority of people of Russia than the Tsarist one.


Another layer of The Patricide is the demonstration of how unconditional, omnidirectional love works in a sub-optimal world: When Koba loses the option of building his own family (after killing one of Girgola’s men), he concentrates on building a better future for others.


One of the avid readers of The Patricide was so inspired that he made Koba his pseudonym and player a major role in building that new, better society in Russia. This man is known to the world as Joseph Stalin.

Stalin’s secret love

Most Western people think that Joseph Stalin is a violent pervert, who killed millions of innocent people for no reason. Many Russians like him and this leads the ignorant Westerner to the conclusion that they are crazy.

There are several things wrong about this idea.

First of all, some Russians (including myself) think that Stalin was the best possible option at his time for one very simple reason: The system built during his time ensured the survival of the population of the USSR in 2 wars targeted at the extinction of Soviet people.

Let’s look at these two wars in more detail. When Hitler attacked Russia, one of his declared goals was to enslave the majority of the population of Russia. Note that Russians are only one people living there. When I say “Russian population” I mean over a hundred ethnicities, big (e. g. Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews) and small. Many of these peoples have they own languages and a distinct culture. If Hitler managed to achieve his goals, the majority of this cultural diversity would have been destroyed.

Hitler wasn’t after Russia’s natural resources (although that certainly was one motive), he wanted to annihilate the “subhuman” inhabitants of the Soviet Union.

What prevented the Nazis from this?

Again, there are many reasons, but one of the most important ones is that the USSR had a powerful economy, which could produce more tanks and airplanes per unit of time than the German one.

How did Russia get this economy? Well, most of it was built between 1928 and 1941 in scope of the forced industrialization. When Stalin came into power, what he had was an agricultural country (without any meaningful industry) traumatized by World War I and subsequent Civil War of 1917-1922. From the beginning of the Soviet Russia it was clear that sooner or later one or more Western powers will attack it. That it will happen was a certainty, the only unknowns were – who and when?

And it was perfectly clear to Stalin that Soviet economy could not compete with those of potential enemies (England, France, US, Germany).

So the Soviet leaders had to

a) build an industrialized economy

b) without any external investments

c) in less than 25 years.

Western countries used the exploitation of colonies to finance their industrialization. Soviet Russia didn’t have any colonies, so Soviet leaders had to exploit someone else.

The only social group, which could finance the industrialization were the peasants. They became Russia’s “internal colonies”. The Soviet government of that time took several measures to get maximum profit from the agricultural sector:

1) That industry was reorganized – formerly independent farmers were united into large agricultural enterprises.

2) The state arranged a scheme, in which it bought peasants’ output (wheat, meat etc.) very cheaply and sold products to them (e. g. machines) at a high price. In this way, the budding Soviet industry got higher profits at the expense of the peasants, who stayed poor.

Was this transition smooth?

Not at all. First, many peasants didn’t want to give up their independence. Second, they didn’t want to sell their goods at a low price.

All this led to conflicts between the peasants and the state, and, indeed, many people were killed.

But if one person gets killed to save the lives of 100 more, do you really think that the killed person died for nothing?

In the industrial enterprises, which were being built, the discipline was extremely harsh under Stalin’s rule. Coming late or doing low quality work was punished brutally.

One of the reasons it was handled this way was the trauma of the Civil war, which the majority of the Russian society went through. From 1914 (start of World War I) through 1922 (end of Russian Civil War) people were used to violence and in those 8 years simply forgot, how to work.

It wasn’t Stalin’s fault that his predecessors (Russian nobility, remember the passage about laziness?) wasted the money on balls in Paris instead of building a competitive economy in Russia. He and his followers had to make Soviet Russia capable of self-defense and do so quickly – in a matter of decades instead of centuries (like the Western powers).

Under these conditions, stick was a better motivator than the carrot. But again, it wasn’t useless because the descendants of people, who suffered during the industrialization, got a carrot during the period of the developed socialism (1965-1992). That carrot was a lifestyle, unimaginable under Tsarist rule. In the table below you see some key performance indicators of quality of life before and after Stalin’s rule. If the lost lives are the costs of progress, those improvements are the benefits.



p. KPI
p. Unit
p. Before Stalin
p. After Stalin
p. Improvement
p. Average number of schooling of the population older than 9 years
p. Years of schooling
p. 1.112
p. 6.048
p. 544 %
p. Literacy
p. Percentage of literate (able to read and write) population
p. 44.10 %
p. 98.5 %
p. 2.23 times
p. Teachers
p. Number of teachers
p. 222,974
p. 1,733,000
p. 777 %
p. School attendance
p. Number of schoolchildren
p. 6,808,157
p. 30,127,000
p. 442 %
p. Higher education facilities
p. Number of higher education facilities
p. 91
p. 817
p. 898 %
p. College enrollment
p. Number of college students
p. 127,000
p. 2,001,000
p. 1576 %
p. Life expectancy
p. Years
p. 30.54
p. 68.75
p. 225 %
p. Infant mortality
p. Number of deaths of babies less than 1 year old per 1000 of newborns
p. 273
p. 68
p. 75 %
p. Food consumption
p. Food consumption estimate in kCal
p. 2232
p. 3180
p. 142 %
p. Construction of housing
p. Millions of square meters of housing built per year
p. 12.99
p. 20,8
p. 160 %

Source: Benefits of Stalinism

So, yes, there were lots of casualties during Stalin’s rule.

There is another thing many people oversee. Any social and technical system is designed for certain conditions, under which it operates. The harsher the conditions, under which it operates, the worse it works and the more malfunctions it has.

If we talk about any law-enforcement organs (e. g. the police), then a malfunction is when an innocent person is killed or sentenced for a crime he or she did not commit. Now let’s imagine that some country has very peaceful neighbors, who never attacked it. Think of Switzerland, for example. The law-enforcement system of that country will have very few malfunctions (innocent people being punished) because there is plenty of resources and time to do the investigation correctly.

At the other extremes are poor countries at war. They have less cops, they are less educated and have to handle more work for lower pay. Even if they are not inherently evil, they are more likely to make mistakes, including punishing innocent people. The conditions are worse than in Switzerland and – as a consequence – the number of malfunctions is much higher.

Now let’s look at a real example. The United States is currently the most powerful nation in the world. No other nation has the capacity to attack it. In order to have a chance of successfully attacking someone, you need to have 3 times more resources (weapons, manpower etc.) than the victim. No country on Earth has this potential.

But it’s also is the wealthiest nation in the world.

Theoretically, in a law-enforcement system of a society


  • with highest-possible level of wealth and
  • without any external threats,


the number of malfunctions of the police must be very low, close to zero.

Yet, in 2015, 385 people were killed by the police. This is the number of malfunctions of the police in a peaceful time, in the wealthiest and most powerful country of the world. For every one person shot by the police, there are probably several, who have been punished for no reason.


Soviet Russia between 1928 (start of the industrialization) and 1953 (Stalin’s death) was in a much worse shape than the United States in 2015. Poverty, destruction of two wars, very low education level of the majority of the population (thanks again, Tsarist nobility) and hostility of the former elites in exile. The majority of the aristocracy, who emigrated after the revolution never admitted or understood their share of guilt in the casualties of the Civil War.


Their hatred towards the majority of Russians erupted after Germans attacked the USSR. In the Nazi German army there were military units, who consisted primarily of Russian aristocrats in exile. Those units belonged to the so-called Russian Liberation Army under the formal command of Andrey Vlasov. They fought on the side of the Nazis. They killed their own countrymen out of unjustified revenge.


Before World War II, these former aristocrats were involved in several diversions (today we would call it terrorist attacks) against the USSR.


As you can see, even though Soviet Russia was at peace from 1917 through 1941, it had many enemies and challenges, which put an unprecedented pressure on its law-enforcement system. No wonder that it worked worse than under normal conditions and generated lots of errors (innocent people killed or otherwise punished). No wonder the life wasn’t particularly enjoyable at that time. What mattered then, was not enjoyment, but survival. Relative prosperity happened later, in the fat years of the developed socialism (1965-1992).


Joseph Stalin and his followers built a system, which fulfilled that crucial survival task – the USSR survived in the World War II. This is reason #1 why people like me think that Stalinist way was the only practical one at that time and under those circumstances (if you think differently, please tell me what sequence of actions would guarantee the survival of the majority of people of the USSR in World War II).


The second reason is that Joseph Stalin prevented another country, different on the outside, but with similar intents as the Nazis, from annihilating Soviet people using nuclear weapons. To some extent, the post-Roosevelt United States were similar to the Nazis in their attitude towards the Soviet Union, with two differences:


1) The US had stars and stripes instead of the Swastika.


2) They had more advanced means of killing (nuclear bombs and airplanes for their delivery).


I’m talking about the Cold War. There are reasons to believe that


A) the United States (not the Soviet Union) started it and

B) wanted to use nuclear weapons to extinguish the majority of Soviet population.


Let’s look at both statements in more detail. The reasons to believe that the Cold War was started by the United States are the following:


1) At the end of World War II, the USSR was too tired from the war to wage another one. The buildings and the machines were destroyed, many of the workers killed or crippled.


2) At the start of the Cold War in 1946 (Churchill’s speech in Fulton), the USSR lacked the weapon types, which were required to attack the United States. The USSR didn’t have an atomic bomb until 1949 (the US dropped two of them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki already in 1945), nor did it have means of delivery (airplanes or rockets) for transporting the bomb from Russia to the United States. Only in 1957 did Russia build its first intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-7. How could the Soviet Union wage a war against the United States in 1946, when the latter had both nukes and means of delivery (long-range bombers) and the former didn’t? If the Soviet Union actually wanted to attack the US, how would it deal with American nukes? Deploy bear cavalry against them or what?


You may love or hate the Soviet leaders, you can think that they are smart or dumb, but what they definitely weren’t is suicidal.


3) Several sources, incl. Western ones, claim that Joseph Stalin supported pro-American sentiment in the Soviet government and was saddened, when he learned about the death of Roosevelt.


4) The majority of the people in the post-war Soviet Union was pro-American because they they helped the USSR to fight the Nazis.


5) Contrary to the early Bolsheviks, who wanted a world revolution, Stalin was a proponent of “socialism in one isolated country”. This means: After the start of World War II, the USSR dropped the idea of exporting the revolution into other countries. This happened partly because by doing so, the USSR gained more support from its capitalist Allies, partly because Stalin and his followers were more pragmatic and cared about the concrete, material interests of their countrymen more than abstract notion of the world revolution. In other words: There were too many things to be done at home, in Russia, to waste resources on spreading revolution to other countries.


6) Soviet Union hoped to get support for re-building itself in form of a loan from the United States.


7) Last, but not least, you don’t win a world war by getting into fights you cannot win. The Red army won a war, hence its generals must have known something about winning wars. Even if the Soviet elite wanted to attack the US, Red Army generals would have dissuaded them.


For all these reasons it is very unlikely that the Soviet Union was a real threat to the Western world in military terms. It is even less likely that the Soviet Union would want to start a Cold War with its former allies. For what purpose?


Along the similar lines you could accuse today’s Nigeria, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Iraq of plans for world domination and appoint them the official enemies of the United States.


Now let’s look at the other part of the equation: Earlier I said that the US wanted to attack the USSR and kill the majority of its population. In 1977 several military archives were declassified under the Freedom of Information Act. Some of these materials were published in a book “Dropshot: The United States plan for war with the Soviet Union in 1957”. According to these materials in 1949 a committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a plan for World War III, which was scheduled to occur on January 1st, 1957.


In that book on p. 3 we can read that


General Eisenhower, then still Commander-in-chief of U. S. forces in Europe, produced a plan for a war with Russia in Europe called Totality. That was late in 1945.

[_ _]


[_ _]

The Pentagon’s Joint Intelligence Staff promulgated a study entitled “Strategic Vulnerability of Russia to a Limited Air Attack”, and only fifty-one days after the Russo-American alliance dissolved with the surrender of Japan, the Staff presented its report.

[_ _]

“Surrender of Japan” occurred on September 2, 1945, and the Germans capitulated several months earlier – on May 9th, 1945.

[_ _]

From this we can conclude that the American elite planned to attack its former ally in the battle against the Nazis shortly after the victory over them. In 1945 the Soviet Union didn’t have a nuclear bomb and was incapable of defending itself against this kind of weapon. What it was capable of is to re-build itself, to greatly improve quality of life of its inhabitants and set an example other countries, including Western ones, may replicate. The Soviet Union was the only country in the world, which could spread a way of life, different from the Western one, by peacefully improving itself. This was something the Western elites couldn’t tolerate.


Having defeated the Nazis with Swastikas, the Soviets faced a danger of annihilation by the Nazis with stars and stripes. The American elites (with the exception of some reasonable personalities like F. D. Roosevelt) were political prostitutes. As E. L. Doctorow pointed out (my emphasis)


American capitalism conceives, quite correctly, that it can only survive in opposition to socialist democracy; that is the real meaning of the Truman Doctrine.That is why we ring our socialist ally who won the war in the East and thereby prevented Fascism from engulfing the West – that is why we ring her borders with military bases.

_*That is what you do to a man, who does you a favor. You cannot admit your debt, so you find a way to hate him. We made love with Soviet Russia during the war because with needed her.* _

Now we jilt her once again and resume the great conspiracy that has gone on since the very days of the Revolution when American troops occupied Siberia in hopes of restoring Czarist tyranny.


In fact, the new Nazis were worse than the defeated ones because they had a weapon, which allowed to kill millions of Soviet people by a switch of a button.


Once again, the Soviet society was forced to develop a new industry – now the atomic one – fast enough, before the Americans produced enough bombs to implement their evil plans. Once again, Soviet leaders had to motivate a population traumatized and tired from a 4-year war (including unprecedented cruelties of the Nazis towards the civilians) to catch up with the West using an industrial base heavily damaged by the war (one third of Soviet national wealth has been destroyed in the war).


In 1949 first Soviet nuke fired. In 1957 first ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) flew. Now the US couldn’t attack the USSR without revenge. Stalin and his colleagues once again succeeded at defending the USSR from a stronger enemy. And when I say “USSR” I mean not the abstract notion of the motherland, but very concrete people of various nationalities, who inhabited the Soviet Union at that time and would have evaporated in a nuclear war started by the American state.


Fortunately, the Soviet science and industry managed to manufacture a nuclear bomb and a rocket for its delivery fast enough (before the Americans produced the intended number of nukes to drop on Russia).


My parents were born in 1955-1956. If Stalin failed to create the nuke and the ICBM, they would have died in the American attack scheduled for 1957.


Stalinists respect Stalin because of the fact that on two occasions his regime managed to fulfill the most important task of any society: survival. As the above statements indicate, Stalin managed to assemble a team, which managed to implement highly complex projects (industrialization, defending Russia and liberating the world from the Nazis, building the atomic bomb and means of delivery) under extremely hostile conditions (poverty, destruction of several wars, powerful enemies like the Western countries, poorly educated population).


To some extent, Stalin and his colleagues were a team of super-entrepreneurs in the best sense of the word.


It goes without saying that when a person accomplishes several impossible missions, this person must be a highly developed, spiritual being.


We were talking about love stories, right? When a superman does several incredible feats, there is usually a superwoman on his side.


Joseph Stalin, like any other historical figure, is now rather a myth than a human being. Therefore, there is very little reliable information about him.


In particular, we can’t find any indication of great women in his life in the official biographies.


But we are reading about heroes not to get an accurate account of their lives, but to get inspiration on how to improve OUR lives, right? Therefore it’s OK, if a love story of a mythological person is semi-fictional.


Alexey Meniialov wrote several books about the love life of Joseph Stalin, which was hidden from historians and his biographers. Those statements are based on Meniialov’s private research (in particular his book Initiation of the wizard) and may or may not be accurate.


Before the October revolution, Joseph Stalin was active in the Russian Social-Democratic Worker’s Party. As with many other revolutionaries, the authorities of Tsarist Russia deported him to several remote regions. This had several purposes: First, to cut the connection between the revolutionary and his peers. Second, since many of the exile destinations were located in areas with harsh climate, it increased the likelihood that undesirable elements will die there.


Stalin was deported five times. The last deportation went to the Turukhansky District, a region in the North of Russia, where the average temperature in winter is -25 degrees Celsius (-13 degrees Fahrenheit). Allegedly, the snowdrifts there reach a height of 3 meters (9.84 feet). At the time of Stalin, the prices for the most trivial goods were outrageous (because of the large distance to the next city) and if you wanted to go fishing, you had to cope with storms on the Enisey river.


The closest large city is Krasnoyarsk, which has a significantly more comfortable climate.


Several Russian revolutionaries (including Lenin) on the way to Turukhansky District were first deported to Krasnoyarsk. But most of them never got to Turukhansky District. Lenin, for example, could avoid the transfer to that extreme region by asking the police for sending him elsewhere because of his pneumonia. He got that permission, and most of other deportees with lung diseases did as well.


It was a different thing with Stalin. He also arrived in Krasnoyarsk and could easily get a transfer to a different region, partly because he had tuberculosis at that time. Contrary to most of his colleagues, he didn’t request such permission and voluntarily went to a place, where people in his condition quickly died.


Meniialov claims that the reason for such an interesting, life-threatening choice was that Stalin somehow felt that in those northern regions he would find a female shaman, who would teach him skills, valuable for his subsequent career.


Stalin settled in the village Kureika (78 inhabitants at his time) in the house of a Keto shaman. Keto are a Siberian people. Stalin was the only deportee, who wanted to live in this region and therefore he had his personal police guard.


The first police guard wanted Stalin to stay in the village and don’t do any longer journeys. Stalin disliked it, they got into a fight. According to a legend, Stalin approached the guard doing some strange hand movements, forced him to go closer and closer to the Enisey river so that the guard almost drowned. After that incident, the guard was replaced by another police man. The second guard did not dare to hinder Stalin from journeys of up to 100 kilometers from Kureika.


Allegedly, during his stay in Kureika Stalin fell in love with a female Shaman of the Keto people. At the time of their encounter, he was 38 and she was 73, but was much younger physically. According to a legend, villagers were scared of her because when she came across a person, who committed a crime against morality, she used to take him over her head and smash to the ground. Her age didn’t prevent her from doing such fitness exercises.


She taught him to fish, hunt and a variety of other survival skills. It is likely that these experiences later allowed him to be more effective in Kremlin. We don’t know for sure whether that female shaman really existed, but it’s a fact that Stalin was much more productive than most other people. This may be the consequence of spiritual breakthroughs he achieved in Kureika.


Another thing we know for sure is that Stalin didn’t die from tuberculosis in 1917. Something cured him despite the cruel climate of that region. Today’s medics (see Radical Remission book by Dr. Kelly Turner) regularly encounter cancer patients, who survive it, either without proper treatment, or under conditions when they couldn’t survive according to everything we know about cancer today. There is growing evidence for the hypothesis that mental transformation may be one of the reasons those patients survive.


Meniiailov also claims that Stalin’s lover taught him to communicate with her telepathically so that she could support him emotionally even at a distance. She knew that Stalin needed to go away from her to accomplish his mission. She also knew that he wouldn’t do it voluntarily – according to statements of several people, Stalin said that his stay in Kureika was the happiest period of his life. Allegedly, that female shaman imitated her death by leaving her clothes on the bank of a tumultuous river. Thereafter, Stalin went back to the center of action (urban parts of Russia), but maintained intuitive contact with his love.


Unfortunately, we have zero reliable facts about Joseph Stalin. During his time in power, the knowledge about him has been distorted by the propagandas (Soviet and Western ones), as well as people, who tried to sabotage his intentions by establishing a cult of personality. There are also suspicions that Stalin himself forged parts of his biography.


We should treat any information about him as fiction. And we can select those myths about him, which are more empowering to us.


Let’s look at the myth above from that vantage point. What would Joseph Stalin do, if he lived in today’s Western world? Stalin of the 20th century worked mainly on preservation of people living in today’s Russia and CIS countries. As we figured out earlier, there were at least two attempts in the 20th century to destroy them.


Question: Is this danger gone with the collapse of the Soviet Union?


If the Cold War was about containing Communism with military means, then, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western powers would curtail their military spending. After all, there is no threat of Communism since 1992. Someone even said that the end of the Soviet Union is the end of history.


The reality is different. Even though post-Soviet Russia can’t compete with the West in terms of military (it’s technically impossible for Russia to attack any member of the NATO), the Anti-Russian propaganda never stops. This means, the initiators of the Cold War weren’t after the Communists after all. Modern Russians, including those, who call themselves Communists, do not want to return to Soviet times.


If Western powers still are hostile to Russia, which has weak (compared to NATO) military, poses no ideological threat and isn’t an economic competitor, then what’s the reason for that hostility? And how can we prevent it from causing another war?


If you aren’t interested in Russia, there is another set of problems – can the humanity survive in the long run? Several scientists claim that human extinction is possible. How can it be prevented?


Questions like these are tough and can’t be answered, if you stay within the accepted thought frameworks. To get a chance at answering them in an actionable way, you need to get into a different, much more effective mode of thinking and being. It requires a lot of energy and courage to search and find answers to questions like these. Fortunate for us, there are also means, which allow you to gradually increase your level of development. The strongest performance enhancer is unconditional love to a wise woman. Stalin had to risk his life and go to a remote place to find his. We live in a different world and today there are much more educated women in the cities – you don’t need to go an exotic place to find your muse. She may live next door to you. The challenge is not to find a great woman, but to recognize her as such because many of these women are either modest, or unaware of their huge inspirational potential. Many of them don’t realize, how great they are.


So, Stalin’s central, life-long task (preservation of large number of people from extinction, on a regional or global scale) is still relevant.


We have tools, which Stalin hadn’t. We can reach lots of people at a very little cost. The Internet is being used actively for approx. 20 years, yet the humanity as a whole didn’t become more intelligent as a consequence. At the time of this writing (June 2015), there is more or less serious talk about another Cold War, while the hot one continues for more than a year in Eastern Ukraine. As a humanity (without dividing ourselves into nations) we still are quite self-destructive.


There are means to spread great messages with little cost, something which philosophers and messiahs of the past would have killed for, but no great messages are transmitted. Why is that?


Part of the answer is that the majority of us has a wrong, distorted world view. The greatest obstacle to the world peace are not the nuclear arsenals of Russia, China and Iran (and/or their leaders), but the susceptibility of Western masses to media hype. If people in the countries with most arms wouldn’t believe the media without questioning, World War II and the Cold War wouldn’t have happened.


In popular culture, the zombies are a recurring topic. Many people seem to like them. Maybe this is because most of us are similar to them. What is a zombie anyway? The concept is from the Haitian folklore and there a zombie is a corpse animated by magic.


What if „magic“ is a symbol for „stereotypic behavior“? What if „corpse“ is a symbol for a body without connection to its intuition (higher Self, God or whatever entity you believe in) ?


The stereotypic behaviors are implanted into our brains via the media and our fellow zombies. And the spiritual charlatans (like the authors of the movie „The Secret“) make us cut the connection to higher spheres of consciousness. We are obsessed with zombies in popular culture because most of us are zombies in real life.


The television says we have to hate (love) the homosexuals, and most of us do it and believe that it’s our own feelings. The next day it says Russia invaded Ukraine, and again, most of us believe it without even trying to check the facts. The higher the proportion of zombies in the population of militarily powerful countries, the higher is the danger of big wars.


It’s hard to stop being a zombie.


But there are tools, which help. One of these tools is the unconditional love to a woman, who has a higher level of development than the man.


According to my own experience, there are three ways, in which a wise woman can help a man transform himself from zombie to genius:


1) Hint to him the activity, which will develop his powers (tell him, what he can do in order to become order-of-magnitude better as a person).

2) Energize him.

3) Prevent him from indulging in distracting, less useful actions.


Finding central activity


If you look through the biographies of successful people, you may find out that many of them had activities that stabilized their psyches and made them effective in the hardest circumstances. Mark Oliver Everett (better know as the founder of the band “Eels”), for example, grew up in highly distorted circumstances, but survived thanks to the music. Same applies to Eminem. Beethoven had – like Eminem – also a bad start in life. Probably, music helped him as well.


The Asians believe that every human has energy centers (chakras), which influence his or her health and other aspects of life. When those energy centers malfunction, doing some inspiring task helps unblock them.


The problem is – how do you discover your life-saving activity in an ocean of potential choices?


The tested method is trial and error – you get an idea (e. g. I should learn to dance), you try it out (actually take dance lessons) and then you determine, whether this activity is the one (you actually feel energized after you do it and/or it positively transforms you) or not (you lose interest after a few times). This method certainly works, but takes time and patience.


For the lucky of us there is a shortcut. The lucky of us find a woman, who hints them, what kind of activity they have to do, and all this happens with a precision better than thousand mentors. The man’s job is a) recognize the voice of genius in the talk of an otherwise ordinary woman and b) implement that task to its victorious end.


There is a subtle difference, though. We all know women, who make their boyfriends and husbands whore themselves to corporations in exchange for transient material goods. I’m not talking about manipulation.


What a great Woman does, is to help the man


A) discover his purpose in life and

B) actually implement it using unconventional means.


A great woman helps become the man his best possible Self.




We all know about the man’s worst enemy – laziness. Sometimes it’s the consequence of illness, bad eating habits or junk in the mind. If (and only if) a man works hard on overcoming the laziness, he is sometimes rewarded by a visit of a muse.


I experienced it myself that after innocent conversations with some special women, I couldn’t help, but do something useful. Once, I had a smalltalk with a female colleague. Over the subsequent 2 and half months, when I came home from work, I couldn’t help, but do something on my side projects (prior to that talk I used to waste my time watching «Simpsons» and sleeping).


She didn’t tell me what to do — I already knew what to do, I just didn’t have the energy to implement my intentions.


At a different time, I decided to do a series of meditation exercises, in scope of which you had to repeat a certain mantra several thousands of times. Again, the presence of a woman, for whom I underwent this torture allowed me to finalize this project.


Help focusing


The third way a woman can help a man become his best version is by helping him to focus. Sometimes talented people dissipate their energy among many projects and as a result not one of them gets done properly.


When a man realizes that in order to get a chance to be together with a great woman, he needs to improve himself in some way, all the distracting ventures fade away and he concentrates only on those few projects that matter. Suddenly, it becomes easy to unclutter his life and sacrifice little distractions for the sake of big goals.


These three effects combined (discover one’s purpose in life, energizing and help focusing) allow a zombie to break free from the prison of common nonsense. I’ve tried almost all self-improvement and spiritual techniques and mentors, on which I could put my hand on and I have to say that their combined effect on my life is negligible compared to that of some great women. One great woman, whom you truly love, is worth more than all of the spiritual people together.


Stalin had to go to the Russian North to find such woman (at the risk of dying from tuberculosis due to harsh climate). In our time you may well find such woman anywhere (including a big city). But the aspect of overcoming yourself and your fear, when communicating with her still remains.

The book of Daniel by E. L. Doctorow

We have talked earlier about the US planning a war with the Soviet Union at the

end of World War II. The word „US“ wrongly implies that all Americans wanted

it. That’s not true, and even among the anti-Soviet propaganda there were people in

the US, who wanted to even out the balance of power, thus help the USSR survive. They are examples of people, who resisted the omnipresent propaganda. Their existence gives me hope. As long as there people like them, we aren’t 100 % doomed.


One of them were Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, a couple of American communists,

who gave to the Soviet government parts of the electronics technology. They were

accused of giving to the USSR the secrets of the nuclear bomb and were sentenced

to death.


Decades after the trial most historians agree that


a) Julius Rosenberg in fact gave to the Soviets some American technology, but

b) nothing close to the atomic bomb (Soviet researchers, who built the first

Russian nuke said that they didn’t receive anything valuable from the Rosenbergs)


c) Ethel Rosenberg was not involved in Julius’ activities.


First, let’s explore, why Julius’s deeds were right. During the World War II the

USSR had the greatest number of casualties from the Nazis, and had also

contributed most to its defeat. These casualties could have been reduced, had the

Western powers (including the US) attacked Hitler earlier. But they didn’t.


While the USSR (and this time I mean everyone in the USSR, from the elites to

the lowest-rank worker) struggled to fight off the Nazis, the US lived in relative

peace and had plenty (compared to the USSR) of time and resources to develop

better weapons.


And then, when the Soviets defeated the Nazis, the Americans came and wanted to

attack them. Is this right? Is this fair? If the US wanted to annihilate its ally, who

fought against the Nazis, doesn’t it imply that the US support the Nazis?


Some of the people in the West thought that it was unfair to attack Russia after

World War II. They also wanted to even out the balance of power. Some of them

did it by giving technologies to the USSR, which the Russians lacked. Probably,

Julius Rosenberg thought along these lines, when he was active as a Communist

and cooperated with the Soviets.


When you read the word „communist“ it is likely that a host of negative

associations flows through your mind. Relax, those thoughts and feelings are not

yours, but induced by decade-long propaganda. Remember what I said earlier

about Russian peasants and Afro-American slaves? It were the Communists who

liberated the Russian peasants and gave them much better life than they ever could

have under the Tsarist regime. Let’s do a thought experiment.


Abe Lincoln, the Bolshevik


Imagine you sit in a time machine and go back to the year 1862 somewhere in the

US. You see two parties fighting each other. One of them wants to continue

slavery, the other one wants to eliminate it. Which side would you take?

Now let’s get again into the time machine and fast-forward to 1918 in Russia.

Again, there are two parties, one of them is fighting for the preservation of the

slavery and other other against it. There are some differences:


1) The slaveowners and the slaves had the same skin color.

2) Contrary to the US, where only 13 % of the people were slaves, in Russia the majority of the population were slaves.


Which side would you take this time? Would your decision be different this time?

Do you think you really would fight in the White Army, who wanted to preserve

the status quo, under which a very few people lived in luxury at the cost of

dehumanizing almost everybody else? Whether you like it or not, the non-Communists

in Russia were racists. The only difference to the American racists was

that the former divided the people by their skin color, and the latter – by their

family tree (whether someone belonged to the nobility or not).


I’m pretty sure that if someone like Abraham Lincoln time-travelled to Russia

during its Civil war, he would have taken the side of the Bolsheviks.


Now we can understand the motives of Julius Rosenberg to cooperate with the

Soviet intelligence.


From all that we know about him today, we can be sure that he didn’t give to the

Soviets the secrets of the nuclear bomb for several reasons:


1) He didn’t have the scientific background to understand the physics of nuclear



2) The atomic bomb is a complex weapon with tons of documentation. You cannot

„steal“ it by giving to someone a one-page blueprint. It’s more like a library than a



3) If Julius Rosenberg was such a valuable person in terms of his nuclear knowhow,

why didn’t the Soviets help him escape? Or why didn’t they exchange the

Rosenbergs for American spies captured in Russia?


This leads us to the question: Why were the Rosenbergs put on trial, when the

authorities (probably) knew they were innocent?


The answer is that if you – like the US elite at the end of World War II – want to

attack your former ally, who is bleeding from the wounds of a recently fought war

(and who saved your ass from the Nazis), you need to get the support of the

population by brainwashing it. One of the elements of propaganda are show trials.


Of course, for a show trial you need to pick a victim, which you can lose without

much damage for yourself. You can’t kill a real spy because it’s much better for

you to extract from him information about the enemy, or trade him for your spies.


Unfortunately for them, the Rosenbergs were selected as scapegoats for the trial.

Someone put the blame on Julius to prevent prosecution against themselves.


When Julius didn’t confess, they put his wife (who was completely innocent)

under arrest. But neither of them confessed even under the threat of death.


The story of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg was the foundation of the plot of The Book of Daniel by E. L. Doctorow. That’s another love story to be inspired by.


Photovoltaics of love


The story of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg shows us not only the heroism of Julius,

but the more subtle courage of Ethel. In this situation, Ethel behaved like a true Woman

with a capital W. Even though most of us won’t ever be a on a deadly show trial (I

hope), we still can learn a lot about good relationships from this story.


What constitutes a great relationship?


If man and woman love each other, the woman becomes a source of energy for a

man and makes him do things, he wouldn’t have done alone. These include, but are

not limited to:


1) Victory over laziness. When he was alone, he just watched TV, ate chips and

got fat. When the right Woman entered his life, he started to work on his purpose

in life and achieved success just by working harder. This includes spiritual work

because you cannot develop your spiritual skills without hard work.


2) Inspirational boost. If you aren’t very lazy, you get many ideas during a day. If you meet a powerful muse, it can happen that you generate ideas of an

order of magnitude better quality than alone.


These things happen only if there is true, unconditional love on at least one



To some degree you can compare the woman with the sun, which shines on the

man’s solar arrays and make him do things he wasn’t capable of alone.

The man then can use this energy to do things in the society, which need to be

done, and to provide a good life for his woman. This includes not only the material

part, but also the joy of communicating with a man, who has found his calling and

is doing what he’s come here for. This is probably the best reward an enlightened

woman gets for her inspiration.


In return an enlightened woman gives to a man something usual women are incapable of.


Imagine that the man does something incredibly stupid, outrageous and unacceptable in the society. Even worse – he did it in public. A normal woman (without the capital w) would criticize him, try to correct his behavior. In other words, a normal woman would judge him by the norms of the respective society.


A truly great Woman (with a capital W) thinks and acts differently. She would behave as if what her man does is right and self-evident. No criticism, no attempts to make him change.


In our case, Ethel Rosenberg supports Julius after he has done what the society thinks is an outrageous deed (helped the Soviets get some electronics). Even though she is innocent, she decides to support her husband until the end, even at the price of her life.




No, it’s not just feelings and love blindness.


As with any wise decision, there is a rational justification of this. There is some complex situation and the woman doesn’t know what to think because she has incomplete information. So she has to rely on other people.


She can decide to trust the society, or to trust her lover. The easy option is to trust the society and do what the society wants you to do. In those days this meant to believe the American propaganda, to hate anyone, who looked like a Communist and turn them in. Today, the society wants us to fight for the rights of the LGBT folks, support the Pro-Western regimes in the Ukraine, hate Putin, love Obama and worry about the ISIS. Civilized people, othewise known as moronists (male and female, illiterate and educated), follow all these trends because everyone else does.


The problem is: The society is always wrong. It’s wrong because things aren’t that simple, white and black, as the media and star moronists portray them. To get as close at truth as possible, a person needs to look at something from different angles and then make his or her own conclusions.


This act of critical thinking automatically puts him or her at odds with the common nonsense the society believes. If someone does this exercise regularly (like Julius Rosenberg probably did), his worldview will drift apart from the accepted one more and more. From the point of view of the society, a person with highly developed critical thinking is always a heretic, a crazy man or woman at best and a criminal at worst. Sometimes, it’s very hard to understand such people.


A normal woman is normal because she is a moronist like anyone else. She can’t understand her husband rationally (because real critical thinking requires practice and she didn’t do it) and therefore starts to pour upon him the stereotypical responses, which are commonly accepted, sound and wrong.


A great Woman relies on her intuition when she decides which side to take – the society’s or her man’s. She may or may not understand the rationale of his behavior, but she feels that there must be some reasonable explanation, why he decided to do what he did. Even, if she (and most other people) do not fully understand his train of thought. True love of such woman makes her trust the critical thinking of her husband more than the lies and cries of the society. To some degree, true love of such (rare) women is what makes them, their men and children truly free.


This is why Ethel Rosenberg decided to support her husband when nobody did.


Fyodor Dostoyevsky once said that beauty will save the world. This quote doesn’t make any sense. If we populate the Earth with lots of clones of Kaley Cuoco, Heidi Swedberg and Anne Dudek, people like me will enjoy the view, but will it really save the world?


Dostoyevsky’s quote done right sounds like this: Unconditional love will save the world. It will save the world because the emotional support brainiacs receive from their women makes them continue to invent new software, books and better government systems. Unconditional love can save the world because it can reduce the number of people, who support Nazis’ invasion to Russia and American plans to annihilate it with nukes in 1945-1957 (and maybe 2014-2015). When a great Woman inspires her geek lover, she does a great service to the society because under her influence that geek can transform into a genius, which our civilization, a big bunch of moronists, badly needs to surive. The love of those women actually contributes to saving the world.

Roadside picnic by the Strugatsky brothers

The CEO of a company introduces a lecturer to his employees:

[_ _]

– We have a visit from a renowned lecturer, who will give us a presentation about love with lots of images. Please start.

[_ _]

The lecturer says:

[_ _]

– Thanks. There are several forms of love, for example, love between man and woman.

[_ _]

The crowd starts to shout:

[_ _]

– Show us the images!

[_ _]

The CEO: – Guys, please behave.

[_ _]

The lecturer continues, slightly confused:

[_ _]

– For a long time, this was a forbidden topic, but since recently we can speak openly about this… Anyway, another form of love is love between two men…

[_ _]

– Show us the images!

[_ _]

– …and love between two women is also possible.

[_ _]

– I-ma-ges! I-ma-ges!

[_ _]

The crowd gets more and more excited.

[_ _]

– Quiet, the CEO shouts and asks the lecturer to continue.

[_ _]

– There is also love to your motherland. And now we’re gonna look at the images.


Soviet joke from 1980es


This e-book is about love stories. Usually, we assume that «love» means love between man and woman. But if we speak about unconditional love (and conditional love isn’t really love, it’s just a form of retail or wholesale prostitution), we can extend the concept to love to a child or the humanity. When you want your child to be happy long-term, regardless of whether he or she appreciates it, that’s unconditional love. If you want your community to prosper, regardless of whether your efforts will be rewarded, that’s unconditional love.


«Roadside picnic» is a science-fiction novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. It plays in the mid-20th century in a little Canadian town of Harmont. Prior to the start of the story, the aliens visited the town, devastated a large part of it, left lots of mysterious artefacts and then left. The part of the town, which the aliens visited is called «The Zone» and isn’t suitable for living. There are lots of inexplicable phenomena in the Zone (such as places with unusually high gravity). Normal people aren’t allowed to visit it because of those dangers.


After the visit of the aliens, the international community creates a research institute close to the Zone so that the scientists can learn more about it. Apart from the scientists and the military, who visit the Zone legally, there are so-called stalkers — people, who go to the Zone, find artifacts there and then sell them on the black market.


The protagonist of the novel is the stalker Redrick «Red» Schuhart, who used to visit the Zone, but now is working as an assistant of the Russian scientist, Kirill, at the Institute.


Redrick’s wife Guta tells him she is pregnant and concerned because he’s been exposed to radiation in the Zone, and their future child may be handicapped.


Redrick undergoes several adventures in the Zone. Later in the novel, his child is born and soon it becomes clear that there are indeed problems with her. The older the girl grows, the more it becomes similar to a monkey.


His fellow stalker, Buzzard Burbridge, tells him about an artifact in the zone, a gold sphere, which allegedly grants wishes. Burbridge himself knows the location of that sphere, but can’t go there because he hurt his feet and can’t go to the zone in such condition. Also, there are some traps (something like a minefield) on the way to the sphere, and in order to get through them, a second man is required. That person, a walking picklock, will go first on the minefield, get killed and then the second one will know the safe path. Burbridge tells to Redrick that he has a map, knows all the traps and is ready to share them with Redrick. In exchange he wants Redrick to let him use that magical sphere to heal his legs. Using the magic sphere Redrick could heal his daughter.


Redrick hesitates because of the moral dilemma (he has to sacrifice one human being to save another), but eventually decides to accept Buzzard’s offer. What the latter doesn’t know is that Redrick tricked Burbridge’s son into going with him as a human picklock.


There are several aspects of the story which are relevant for us:


1) Walking through an uncharted zone.


2) Metaphor of co-operation of body, mind and intution.


3) Love in a disturbed world.


Walking through an uncharted zone

[* *]

The central theme of this book are stalker walking through a dangerous zone without a map and proper equipment, in search of potentially valuable artifacts.


There are several ways to interpret this metaphor. Let’s look at some interesting of them.


Tarkovsky’s “Stalker” movie


In 1979, Andrei Tarkovsky, a Russian director shot the movie “Stalker” loosely based on the plot of the “Roadside picnic”. In the movie, there are three characters:


1) The stalker (by the way, this word in terms of the novel has nothing to do with the usual meaning of annoying a woman).


2) The author, who suffers from writer’s block and gets into the zone to get new ideas.


3) The professor, who claims to search for a major discovery in the zone.


The zone allegedly contains a place called “a room”, which grants wishes (similar to the sphere in the novel). The three men wander through the zone, avoid the traps and when they arrive in the room, the Professor reveals that he has brought a bomb to destroy the room. He wants to prevent it being used by evil people.


Alexey Meniiailov (whom we already know from his half-researched, half-fiction books about Joseph Stalin) claims that The Stalker is a guide for developing spiritual abilities, and the three men represent different aspects of the psyche:


  • the stalker is the body,
  • the writer – right brain, imaginative part and
  • the professor – the logical-analytical part.


This gives some thought food: The writer (creative mind) and the professor (logical mind) don’t particularly like each other, and the stalker (the body) facilitates the communication with them.


There are traps, where only the writer can show the group, how to pass with minimal injuries – an indication that there are challenges in life, which neither the hormone-driven body (the stalker), nor logic-driven professor can master. Bazarov gets killed for his belief in the uselessness of liberal arts, in The Stalker the professor tolerates the presence of the writer and therefore survives.


Note that in the Zone, the stalker leads the group. Stalker – the body – is also the source of emotions. This means that uncharted waters and soils of the Zone are best navigated with the guts of the body. Or: real personal development is always driven by emotions, including love. People incapable of (or suppressing) emotions like Bazarov can’t get wiser and turn to cynicism.


Most important of all – only three of them together can reach the room, which is a symbol for the ultimate purpose of human life. The harmony of body, imaginative and the logical minds is part of it.


Changing world

[* *]

Another view of the zone is that a happy life (with or without love) requires us to adapt to a changing world. Contrary to previous generations, we can’t rely on the advice of our parents (get a degree, get a job, be happy) regarding earning money. Everyone knows that. But the majority of people ignore the fact that something has shifted the paradigm of love during the last 3 decades. Nowadays, it’s harder to fall and stay in love for a long period of time than it was before.


Superficial people talk about change in morales, the change in the gender roles and the effect of birth control. My subjective impression is that today’s people are more sensitive to their true feelings. It’s easier for them to feel real love as well as lack thereof. They feel the pain of fake love harder than before and find it impossible to stay with a pro-forma lover.


After all, we know that the progress in science and technology is now faster than it was at pre-WWII times. It’s reasonable to assume that something has changed in the way our minds work (faster technological progress is the consequence of changes in they way brains work). If our minds work differently in the technological fields, why couldn’t there have been a change in the way they work in love things?


If this is true (and changing patterns in family life suggest it is), we need to find new ways to live our love lives. A fulfilling relationship is then the sphere, which grants wishes. The traps on the road there are wrong ideas about how relationships work (see the beginning of this e-book). Some of the traps are deadly — if you get used to regard your partners as interchangeable and temporary, it will be hard to unlearn it.


The love zone is uncharted — for some of us canned advice just doesn’t work. So you have to create your own map of the territory while you wander around it.


The zone is scary — just look at the relationships of other people. Would you like to end up in one of these? Probably not.


The zone is huge: If you have a partner already, there are millions of ways, in which you can design your relationships and you need to select the best one. If you don’t, there are millions of ways to search for one.


The zone makes you different — things become loaden with additional meanings, once they are put in context of a relationship. It’s like patches of increased gravity in the zone — you walk like usual, and when you get into that spot you suddenly can’t move and are pressed to the earth. Isn’t this a good metaphor for how we fight over trivial things with the people we love most?


Apart from the gravity fields, there are other dangers in the zone — for example radiation of former traumas, which poison your relationships in the present. The problem with them is that they are scattered all over the place and you have to pay attention in order not to walk smack into one of them.


In the original novel there are zombies in the zone – corpses, which for some reason resurrected. Jesus! These living dead may either represent outdated approaches to relationships (which ought to be buried, but somehow always revive), or people like your in-laws.

[* *]

Zone as the search for a relaunch of a relationship

[* *]

In fairy-tales the characters face major challenges before their relationship gets stable. When they unite, a supposedly pleasant, easy part of life starts (that’s where the story usually ends). “They lived happily ever after” is thought to be easier than fighting for love. But is it? Is it really easy to keep the relationship interesting in absence of any major threats?


I think that if you’ve lived with someone for a long time, and you know each other very well, it takes an effort to keep the relationship exciting. Here we are again: An uncharted zone, which contains a “room” (or a wish-granting sphere) – symbol for healthy fire in a long-term relationship. And once more there are many traps, such as evasion into affairs or hedonistic breakups.


One of the time-proven ways out – creating and raising happy, healthy kids – is as risky as founding a startup.


[* *]

Love in a disturbed world

[* *]

Another layer of this novel is the attempt of Redrick to build a normal life in abnormal circumstances. He and his family live in a region destroyed by the visit of the aliens. It’s not exactly Bay area. He and his family can’t emigrate because the authorities fear the diseases of the Zone’s visitors may be contagious. And, of course, his daughter, who is slowly turning into a monkey.


The tragedy of Redrick is that he can’t really do anything strategically against this mess. Do you see the analogy to the real world here?


The obvious one is Eastern Europe. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the usual way of life of its inhabitants was destroyed and nothing equally good was put in place. That’s precisely like in the novel – one day you live normally, go to work, raise your children, enjoy life. The next moment, aliens (they used to be called democrats in Russia) come to power and at once, you lose your job, prospects for your children and have no idea, how to survive, lest prosper in that mess. Some time thereafter, a bunch of colorful, nice and promising politicians enters the scene and promises you that if you elect them, you will live as wealthy as in the first world.


You elect them, fight for them on the Independence Square and in the end your country ends up in a civil war and once again you don’t have the slightest idea, whom to support and whom to fight. If you don’t get the analogy, I’m talking about the Ukrainian war now.


Russia, Ukraine and most of the other countries of the former Soviet Union live in the Zone. Except that the aliens, who destroyed everything can come back any time.


But you may end up in the Zone even, if you live outside Eastern Europe.


Even in wealthy countries people are put in situations, when something bad happens and they don’t have any ways to prevent it, such as


A) the Great Depression,

B) the financial crisis of 2008 and

C) the overall tendency to elimination of the middle class.


And, of course, war mongering. The Germans have been manipulated into the suicidal World War II. After its end, the American elite applied the lessons of Goebbels to manipulate the American society into the Cold War. We were lucky that it didn’t escalate, otherwise the entire planet may have been destroyed. Now (2015) again the elites push half the world into a war with Russia. And again, the ordinary citizens have no resistance against manipulation.


The place you live may be different, but the problem is always the same – it’s not you, who decides, how (and whether) your community will live. It’s some other forces, who shape its future.


To some degree, we are all in the Zone.


The novel shows several ways, in which people can behave in the Zone:


1) Work for the future like the scientist Kirill and Redrick (for the survival of her daughter).


2) Maraud like Buzzard Burbridge and the bar keeper, to whom local stalkers sell the goods they find in the zone.


Let’s look at the second group. In real world, pillagers work in banking (both West and Russia), oil and gas (Russia), the financial industries (Western countries) and pharmaceuticals. I call them pillagers because these industries get rich at the expense of the society.


Naturally, they have their own perverted ideologies, which justify to themselves that it’s OK to charge 20-700 % interest rates on credits (Russia), or to prescribe unnecessary, dangerous medical procedures to patients (US) for the sake of profit.


In the novel, Redrick manipulates the son of a marauder in order to achieve his goal of curing his daughter. There are rumours that before, Buzzard Burbridge killed several fellow stalkers as living picklocks. Redrick plays Burbridge’s trick on him. That’s not very ethical in normal circumstances, but isn’t that bad given the fact that Burbridge himself killed several people. In an extreme world, the concept of justice is also skewed.


This concludes our theoretical introduction to idealistic love. Now is the time for practice. We want to do something, which will improve the world we live in and simultaneously fill our lives with purpose. Often, this leads to better relationships. That’s what I call “no-BS spirituality”.


If you want to receive additional information on idealistic love, please go to




and subscribe to my mailing list. Thereafter you will receive several e-mails about how to practice idealistic love.


Dmitri Pisarenko

Moscow, Russia

July 2015


Love and Stalin

Today lots of people are dissatisfied with their relationships. Many gurus and "gurus" claim in order to have a fulfilled love life, one needs to be more spiritual. The problem is - they don't even hint, how to do that without spending years or even decades in faraway countries. In this book you can find inspiration on *) how truly enlightened relationships really work, *) why the normal way of building relationships doesn't work, *) What lies of the media, friends and family prevent you from having a fulfilling love life, as well as *) 7 great, but little known love stories. Plus: Tons of crazy ideas on relationships and history, you won't find anywhere else.

  • Author: Dmitri Pisarenko
  • Published: 2016-04-03 21:50:15
  • Words: 22276
Love and Stalin Love and Stalin