The Nameless Monster: An Analysis of Johan Liebert’s Psychology and Personality

Monster is a fascinating anime that follows the story of a genius neurosurgeon Dr. Tenma and how his act of saving a young patient Johan Liebert alters the course of not just his own story but the story of many others. It is a unique anime that deals with the topic of nihilism in a multifaceted approach of storytelling.

This article will be discussing the antagonist of the show, Johan Liebert, an orphan whose kind and soft appearance belies a monster within. Johan is often characterized as one of the most evil characters to be ever featured in anime, often compared to morally complex characters like Light Yagami and even real-life tyrants like Adolf Hitler.

However, Johan’s evil is not easily apparent. As we will be seeing in my analysis of this character, Johan has philosophical depth which is hard not to appreciate. I have also analyzed his personality through the

So, let’s dive in!

The Beginnings of the Monster in Johan Liebert

There are two major events in Johan’s life which, I believe, psychologically traumatized him. Both occurred during two consecutive stages of his life and laid the foundations of the monster within. The reason I insist that trauma was the true breeding ground of the psychopathy within him is that before these two occurrences, he did not exhibit signs of any psychiatric disorder or problems with attachment.

Having said that, psychopathic traits are psychological elements. There is a clear philosophical rationale for why Johan commits such evil acts as shown or implied in the anime.

To put it discreetly, psychopathy (read more on psychopathy here) develops not only as a trait but as a personality as well and it interacts bidirectionally with his philosophy, maintaining a coherent evilness that is truly fascinating.

Now, time for us to see how this monster develops!

What Makes Johan Liebert Psychopathic

There is a common question asked of the villain – is Johan Liebert a psychopath or sociopath (it is still astounding to me that such a loosely defined term as sociopath still exists in pop culture – but I digress).

The answer is that Johan appears to possess some traits of primary psychopathy. He exhibits charm, appears to have relatively lower levels of anxiety and higher affinity towards long-term planning.

However, what I refer to psychopathy within this particular essay is Johan’s antisocial behavior. In this section, we’ll discuss the origins of Johan’s social psychopathy – or antisocial origins.

First stop – identity issues!

Johan’s Identification with His Sister, Nina Fortner

Firstly, the separation from his sister, back when Věra Černá, his mother, escaped from confinement. When in 1981, Franz Bonaparta came to where they were hiding, he asked Věra to choose which one of the siblings should go for experimentation in the Red Rose Mansion.

Věra first chose Johan but then chose Nina. Both twins at this point were dressed as girls – to hide the knowledge that Věra was the mother of two kids.

This confusion, seeing his twin who appeared much like him being confused – or perhaps chosen – over him at the early age of 5 or 6, was instrumental in the identity problems that Johan faces in the series.

However, I believe that the next traumatic event truly fractured Johan’s conception of attachment and who he was.

The second major trauma Johan faced was the exit of his mother. For some time, Johan lived alone in the almost desolate room at The Three Frogs. His confusion with his sister was compounded by the uncertainty of a parental figure and the strange picture story of the The Nameless Monster – another character who Johan could identify with.

So, when Nina returned and told the story, Johan saw her as he probably saw himself; they were physically identical. Moreover, there is some indication that the separation from his mother could have resulted in depersonalization – as Johan removed his wig only after Nina returned.

Hence, Johan not only imprinted on but also identified with Nina.

The reason why I think this was a particularly traumatic time period for Johan was because of his reaction to re-reading the story of the nameless monster years later, at the Friedrich Emmanuel Library, University of Munich.

Why did Johan collapse/faint at the library?

In Episode 33, “A Child’s View”, Johan reads the picture book The Nameless Monster, goes into a panicked state and collapses right between the aisles. This reaction is very uncharacteristic of him as he has remained composed even in life-threatening situations.

It does nevertheless seem like a very understandable trauma response to reading a text which he used to clutch on to when he was living alone, after his mother left, back at the three frogs building. It appears as if while reading the book – which he read far more than Nina – his assumption that he was there at the Red Rose Mansion was challenged. So far, he had thought that he was the one who witnessed the traumatic massacre at the mansion – which was objectively wrong.

But reading the book he was so familiar with and the memories of it returning seem to go against that.

How could Johan have remembered identifying with the book when he was at the Mansion?

This question breaks through Johan’s identification with his sister, laying bare the clear difference of experience between him and his sister. It is surprisingly common for people who have trauma bonded with others to construct memories. Dutch psychiatrist, Bessel van der Kolk mentions in his book, The Body Keeps Score, that autobiographical memories are particularly vulnerable to tempering when people share a traumatic incident (either having congenial or aggressor-victim roles).

Moving forward, there is another important factor that lays the foundation of psychopathy in Johan. It is the fact that there is nothing really to protect.

We’ll investigate that now.

The Nameless Monster Has No Home

Johan’s tumultuous but intense relationship with his family moved over many different locations – consider that Johan lived a contained life under Bonaparta, then lived under a contrived identity under his mother and, further still, burned the building where he lived in with his sister and ended up travelling across the country alone with her, all while he was possibly below the age of 10.

This negates the idea of a home being a place to feel safe in. Thus, a place that is not a home has no need for it to be protected.

Why does Johan Liebert kill his foster parents (the Lieberts, Springers and so on)?

Reason 1: Lack of Utility and Trust

The monster has nowhere to go.

This is why Johan Liebert ends up killing his foster parents and caretakers at the slightest chance that they might either betray him, or they could be a hinderance in his plans.

Take this for example:

Johan kills the Lieberts (the first Lieberts) the night Franz Bonaparta – the man Johan considers a monster as he was the cause of disintegration in his family – comes to see the twins. The Lieberts allowing Bonaparta to see the twins can be seen as a sign of betrayal of trust.

How could people who love the children they care for allow the monster who caused their children such suffering, within their house?

Or we can look at how Johan’s rationale for having the Springers killed was simply them not acting according to his conception of a true family (which simply seems as a way to manipulate Adolf Junkers into killing them). Another, perhaps the primary reason for having them killed was an attempt to erase the knowledge of Johan and his sister.

So, instead of the home being a place, Johan considers Nina as a home – the sole subject of his protection, softness and familiarity.

His bond with his sister increases, imprinting on her deeply. This is partly why Johan draws her, and she draws out Johan. Nina’s dissociation is equal parts based on her nervous system’s response to familiar stimuli being withdrawn from her life – by the person she herself has identified with the most in childhood, but also simply witnessing person who she fears deeply.

Reason 2: Impairment in attachment to Morality-based authority figures

If we take a psychosocial perspective on Johan’s moral development, we can observe seismic shifts in how his life as a dependent unfolded.

• Under Franz Bonaparta, the authority lay with Věra and Bonaparta
• At The Three Frogs, the authority lay with Věra primarily
• After the disappearance of Věra, the authority lay with Johan himself

Thus, the concept of ‘home’ and the ‘authority figures’ which usually form the pillars of the home are subjected to immense change. Instead of a home, or friends, Johan’s safe space is the presence of his sister.

And no one else.

This brings us to the second aspect of what makes Johan stand out among many well-written fictional characters. The second approach to understanding the monster within him.

What Makes Johan Truly Evil

Johan Liebert’s Weaponized Nihilism

He aligns people to him because he appears agreeable to them. He himself has gone through traumatic experiences thus he knows how to use trauma (for example when he convinces a young blond man, Edmund Fahren, to pretend to be Hans Schuwald’s son, instead of Karl).

He also convinces Miloş to go to the red-light district (one of the orphans taken in by the psychiatrist in Prague Mikhail Petrov– later killed by Johan) in order to find his mother. Johan probably had a good idea that the boy wouldn’t find his mother, this is why he created the perfect situation for a traumatic experience that would force the kid to consider suicide.

Johan also appears to be nihilistic in the sense that he recognizes there is no real meaning behind familial bonds except for the meaning one creates.

However, he makes this nihilism not as a way to enlighten people or think for themselves – rather he nudges people towards making a meaning that is negative rather than neutral. He does this by withdrawing support as soon as he believes his mission is done. He does this with the kid, he does this with his second set of foster parents in Munich (who falsely assumed that Johan was their son).

This could potentially point towards a splitting defense mechanism – especially how Johan splits between being a monster and a very humble, intelligent and kind young boy/man.

Roberto and Johan – Derived Evil vs True Evil

What makes Monster unique as an anime series is that it portrays different kinds of evil parallel to each other – philosophically distinct and in alliance and contrary at the same time.

In this vein, I’ve noticed some parallels in the story between Johan and Roberto. Roberto, one of the main antagonists of the series was at Kinderheim 511 at the same time as Wolfgang Grimmer – one of the protagonists. He was the nephew of Karel Ranke, the head of the Czech secret police. Unlike Grimmer, however, Roberto turned out to be far more callous – Grimmer appears to be saved from this indiscriminant callousness by the way of a more controlled defense mechanism (reaction formation) which allows him to behave violently only when he faces extreme danger.

Nevertheless, the difference between Johan and Roberto was that Roberto believed in a meaning to the hell that Johan envisioned – Johan, however said in the end that he will never be able to see it. Johan’s hell is primarily his existence and separation from the only home he had; his sister.

There is no way that Roberto, although having been brought up cruelly at Kinderheim 511, who was in awe of Johan (and thus found a meaning in his violence as something he committed for Johan) could truly empathize with Johan.

Take this into context:

Johan does not engage in self-preservative behaviors. He does not engage in sex. He does not argue with his victims over their fragility as people with conscience. There are almost no sadistic or hostile urges.

Instead, he relates to them – and he nudges them towards the conclusion that he himself arrives at.

This is starkly different from Roberto, who is far more brash, self-preservative, arrogant, sexually active and sadistic.

In other words, Johan’s evil is self-actualized while Roberto’s evil is organic and biologically contrived.

This is also what makes Johan far more charming as a villain – aside from his physical attractiveness. (Remember, there are positive aspects to psychopathy too).

As his sister repeatedly said, people who tried to use Johan to make their nefarious fantasies reality did not truly understand Johan. Thus, it could be said that throughout life, Johan never really met someone who considered him their equal.

Johan’s Isolation and Relationship with Tenma

I believe that the lack of empathy that Johan got – surrounded by people who either practically worshipped him or feared him is what drew him to people like Tenma, General Wolf and Nina – all of whom did realize the danger Johan posed but who were willing to face him or counter him despite it. This lack of empathy also meant that Johan felt isolated in his true self.

Interestingly, the same experience of ‘not being understood’ is something that Eren Yeager (from Attack on Titan) also went through – albeit he did not have the same level of apathy as Johan.

I am pointing towards how he chooses to be most intimately open about himself – about the monster inside him – through written texts on walls where he has been, rather than in person.

Another point is also very relevant with respect to what isolates Johan and draws him to Tenma.

Johan and Tenma are very similar in their philosophies

“He who sees too much ends up not fitting in anywhere.” – Freidrich Nietzche.

Johan holds Tenma’s philosophy, which is in stark contrast to most of the powerful men in the show, as an equal nemesis to his own.

He says this to Tenma towards the end of the show:

“Doctor Tenma. For you all lives are created equal, that’s why I came back to life. But you’ve finally come to realize it now, haven’t you? Only one thing is equal for all, and that is death.”

This is a nihilistic philosophy – but it is only half of it.

Interestingly, Tenma also operates on an existential understanding of life. He does not argue against the fact that people are born in different circumstances, that there are ranks which make the world unfair (he himself got very upset over being demoted from his position as the Head of Neurosurgery at the Eisler Memorial Hospital when he chose to operate on Johan rather than a celebrity).

However, Tenma chooses to be good despite of that. This is very apparent in how he views his role in society as helping save lives rather than to enjoy prestige or power for the sake of it (something which Nietzsche also prescribes in order to not become vengeful – accept the world as it is, but be open to different truths in the world).

In the end, Tenma saves Johan once again; demonstrating how his worldview is as strong – if not even more so – as a philosophy of life as Johan’s. The expression on Johan’s face when he wakes up shows his ‘defeat’ or ‘annoyance’ at this fact.

Another thing makes Tenma philosophically attractive to Johan is tied to a simple question – what does Johan want?

What is Johan Liebert’s Goal?

Johan’s goal appears, at first glance, to be the erasure of his identity along with the people who affected his life in any major way. General Wolf, the man who found Johan at the border when he was just a child, remarks that everyone who knew his name (as Wolf) had died – attributing this to the presence of Johan.

By association (since he identifies with her immensely) this includes his sister, Nina. This is the reason why he kills the Fortner.

This is what it seems to be the most obvious philosophical reason.

However, philosophical reasons are often driven by psychological biases and lenses of the world.

Hence, the true goal of Johan seems to be to gain control of his life and seek complete closure with his past while doing it. Throughout much of his childhood and early adolescence, Johan was subjected to immense helplessness. His fate never truly seemed to be in his own hands, right from his birth which was itself the result of a eugenics experiment (conducted by the government to produce cognitively and physically optimized children).

The only way to truly to take control was to kill himself and the people who ‘created’ him.

In general, Johan’s kills (which numbered 109 in total) – based on the reason they were killed – fell under five categories. I have ordered them based on their importance in actually driving the killings:

• Curiosity
• Self-preservation
• To erase Johan’s past
• As a favor to a significant person
• Collateral damage

Curiosity and self-preservation seem to be the two major drivers of the killings. On one hand, Johan appears to be conducting an experiment to test waters and the limits of human morality and ability. On the other, he seems to be preserving his own identity – very paradoxical but ultimately understandable given how his goal appears to be ‘self-annihilation’.

Let’s see first how curiosity drives Johan to kill.

Satisfying Curiosity

How – and why – did Johan end up killing everyone at Kinderheim 511?

During his stay – and training – at 511 Kinderheim, Johan spread the rumor of the boy always kept on sleeping pills in order to be controlled, because he was that dangerous. This rumor helped in escalating tensions between the orphans at the orphanage and the staff (both administration and lower faculties).

When describing the reason why Johan did this, Hartmann theorized that Johan wanted to be the last person standing.

But why would Johan want to be the last person standing? There are very few signs of narcissistic thinking in his behaviors. Moreover, during episode 63 of Monster, the forensic psychologist, Dr. Rudi Gillen asks a serial killer what the motive behind Johan’s might be.

The killer says that the sentiment behind it was similar to toying with a line of ants. Or an act of curiosity driven by the understanding that Johan is more powerful than the person(s) he is toying with.

If this were to be understood as a possible motive, much of Johan’s actions which involve truly out of the box thinking to kill various people, can be explained.

Johan is curious what would happen if he plants seeds of doubt.

Annihilation of Johan’s own “World”

The highest number of kills appears to be driven by a desire to erase his own past. However, as it is hinted throughout the series (Johan points to his forehead often when someone attempts to kill him using a gun – beckoning the other person to shoot cleanly and fatally), he is always accepting of death.

Thus, Johan does not only want to erase his past – he wants to erase his ‘world’.

But what does it mean to erase one’s world?

Well, based on his actions, one can conclude that Johan wants to annihilate

• all of the significant people who know him deeply
• all of the places which he felt a deep emotional connection towards
• the people that these significant people know – which had any relation to him or his presence.

This explains why Johan burned down The Three Frogs. This also explains why Johan burned down the Red Rose Mansion. It explains most of the killings Johan did (including the Baby) or had someone else do it on his orders.

This makes Johan’s final plan egocentric but spanning across multiple worlds.

However, there is a deeper goal here which is more psychological rather than conscious in nature.

Self-Preservation

Self-preservation (the first Lieberts and possibly the unnamed couple near the Czech-German border when he and his sister escaped the Three Frogs) appeared to be the original cause of his killings.

However, given that Johan’s primary goal explicitly shown in the series is self-annihilation, how is it possible that he also desires self-preservation?

Due to his egocentric but highly weaponized-nihilistic view of the world – driven by the evils and curiosity of others – there is not a single point in the series where Johan experiences cognitive dissonance.

Except for when (it is implied) that he realizes that he conflated his own memories of the red rose mansion with his sister’s. This happened in the episode “I’m Home”.

Based on this, none of the things he had done up until then, with regards to his ‘plan’ truly seemed to be based on his own memories of the mansion. Right after that confrontation, his ‘plan’ seems to shift towards killing Franz Bonaparta and self-annihilation.

He wants things to go the way he planned. Even in death, he wants his philosophy to remain preserved. Now with the knowledge that his sister was the one who experienced the horrific incident at the Red Rose mansion, there is a very real possibility that Johan finally separated Nina from his own identity.

Now his goal was not that he and Nina should remain in the end.

Now, his goal was to make sure only he remained in his world and he would die alone (he no longer identified himself as Nina’s protector – as she had already experienced horrors he believed were his), preserving his identity as a nameless monster.

This, however, is a theory that fits and connects much of the ends of the philosophy of Johan but is not explicitly stated.

Self-preservation (this included Nina, as he identified her as a part of him) also was the reason why vengeance played a part. Again, not simply a bodily self-preservation, but also of his rationale and psychological architecture.

Did Johan kill out of vengeance?

Here’s why I think such cold and highly rationalized vengeance plays a role.

It is a fact that the people he killed had a role in his upbringing. He targets people within General Wolf’s organization (e.g Professor Goedelitz) however, he ends up killing only a few of them, eventually choosing to intimidate them by having the people around them killed first – as if to remove their safety to destabilize them psychologically.

This was the true way to reach closure that maintains Johan’s philosophy as well as personal experience.

Johan Liebert’s Personality Profile

Within the MBTI typological framework, Johan Liebert most closely aligns with an INTJ-A (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging – Assertive) profile. Thus, he plays the role of the Architect – literally setting up the plan for not only self-annihilation but also the annihilation of the person who he considers made him into who he was. It is important to clarify that MBTI is not a clinical or developmental model and does not account for trauma, attachment pathology, or moral functioning. However, as a descriptive typology, it is useful for understanding Johan’s cognitive preferences, interpersonal presentation, and decision-making style.

In this sense, MBTI helps explain how Johan thinks and operates, not why he became what he is.

Introversion (I): Internal World Primacy

As an Introverted (I) type, Johan’s psychological life is inwardly organized. His dominant orientation is toward his internal framework of meaning rather than external feedback or relational negotiation. He does not process experience through dialogue or shared emotional exchange, but through solitary reflection and internal synthesis.

This is reflected in his preference for indirect expression, most notably through written texts left on walls rather than face-to-face disclosure.

However, he is able to relate to others and make others relate to him through a fake aliases and/or a persona which is psychologically and philosophically coherent with his own story. This shows a high degree of reflection of himself and the people he grew up with and interacts with as well.  

The written messages, however, are the most relevant. They allow for one-way communication without emotional reciprocity, reinforcing the inaccessibility of his inner self. Johan’s introversion thus supports his profound psychological isolation: his “true self” is not hidden accidentally, but structurally contained.

Intuition (N): Abstract and Pattern-Based Cognition

Johan’s Intuitive (N) preference is evident in his abstraction-driven thinking. He engages with the world through symbols, patterns, and overarching concepts such as meaning, identity, emptiness, and existence. Rather than responding to immediate sensory or emotional cues, he operates on a conceptual level, treating people as components within a broader design.

Take, for example, the importance of the picture book The Nameless Monster and how much it guides his actions and thoughts.

This intuitive orientation enables his long-range planning and philosophical nihilism, as his actions are guided by internal visions and theoretical conclusions rather than concrete circumstances. Individuals are not encountered as unique emotional subjects, but as manifestations of patterns Johan believes he has already deciphered.

Thinking (T): Logic Over Affective Reciprocity

Johan’s Thinking (T) preference explains his emotional detachment and moral coldness. His judgments are governed by internal logic, coherence, and consistency rather than by empathy or emotional resonance.

While he demonstrates a high degree of cognitive empathy – the ability to understand others’ vulnerabilities and psychological structures – this understanding is not accompanied by affective empathy. Emotion is not absent, but it is subordinated to rational architecture. Suffering is something Johan analyzes, reproduces, or positions within a system, rather than something he shares or seeks to alleviate.

This thinking-oriented cognition allows him to enact extreme cruelty without subjective disorganization.

Judging (J): Closure, Control, and Finality

The Judging (J) dimension manifests in Johan’s preference for structure, decisiveness, and closure.

His behavior is deliberate and controlled rather than impulsive or chaotic. Once Johan believes a psychological, existential, or narrative objective has been achieved, he disengages entirely. This aligns with his repeated pattern of withdrawal following attachment formation, in which he removes himself at the precise moment when meaning or relational continuity would require maintenance.

Ambiguity is intolerable not because it causes uncertainty, but because it threatens the internal order and symmetry he seeks to impose on the world.

Assertive Variant (-A): Internal Confidence and Emotional Containment

Johan’s classification as INTJ-A, rather than INTJ-T, further explains his composure and apparent immunity to doubt. The assertive variant is associated with high internal confidence, low visible anxiety, emotional containment, and resistance to external correction. Johan rarely seeks reassurance, validation, or emotional grounding from others. This trait allows him to remain calm under extreme stress, including violence and moral confrontation, and reinforces his self-contained psychological posture. He does not question his conclusions; he expects the world to conform to them.

INTJ Traits in Interaction with Trauma

Importantly, Johan’s INTJ-A profile does not cause his destructiveness. Rather, it shapes how trauma is processed and expressed. Instead of being emotionally integrated, his trauma is abstracted and systematized, transforming personal suffering into a universal worldview. Meaning becomes theoretical rather than relational, and ethics become architectural rather than interpersonal. Within this framework, people are positioned, tested, and discarded as part of a larger design.

When combined with early attachment rupture, institutional conditioning at Kinderheim 511, and chronic misrecognition by others, Johan’s INTJ-like cognitive style contributes to a personality that is not fragmented or impulsive, but chillingly coherent – one that does not search for meaning, but demands that the world confirm the meaninglessness it has already concluded.

In Conclusion

Johan Liebert ultimately resists any single label because his violence is not the expression of impulsivity, sadism, or emotional chaos, but of a coherent inner architecture shaped by trauma, curiosity, and philosophical negation.

His early rupture of attachment dismantled the possibility of home as a stable place, redirecting his sense of belonging into abstraction and control. From this foundation emerged a form of nihilism that is not passive or resigned, but active and experimental — one that tests the fragility of identity, meaning, and moral belief through carefully constructed situations.

Johan’s apparent calm and charisma are not signs of inner emptiness alone, but of a cognitive style that privileges prediction, confirmation, and epistemic power over relational engagement. What makes him particularly unsettling is not that he kills, but that he observes: people are positioned, support is withdrawn, and outcomes are allowed to unfold as if they were proofs rather than tragedies. In this sense, Johan is less a monster defined by cruelty than a figure defined by unfinished development — an intelligence untempered by moral maturation, curiosity severed from care, and meaning stripped of responsibility.

His terror lies not in chaos, but in coherence, forcing the unsettling recognition that when curiosity is left unbounded by empathy, it can become indistinguishable from annihilation.