One of the most prolific murderers in history. Vasily Blokhin, Stalin’s chief executioner, was personally responsible for the deaths of over 10,000 people including political dissidents, rivals of Stalin and Polish military officers. Date unknown (c. 1920-1940)
There’s a moment in history—many of them, really—when the bureaucratic machinery of murder requires not generals or ideologues, but men. Flesh-and-blood men willing to do the job others order but dare not witness. That’s where Vasily Blokhin steps in. Stalin’s chief executioner. A man whose hands were stained with more blood than perhaps any single human being in the 20th century. Not because he designed genocide. Not because he pushed paper. But because he pulled the trigger—again and again and again.
We’re not talking metaphor here. Blokhin wasn’t a symbol. He was the last face thousands saw in a basement room in the Lubyanka or a clearing in Katyn Forest. He didn’t preside over mass death. He performed it. Personally.
Let’s frame this the way it deserves to be framed. The man is estimated to have killed over 10,000 people with his own hands. Not orchestrated. Not ordered. Killed.
This wasn’t battlefield combat. This wasn’t war. It was execution—targeted, deliberate, intimate. Blokhin would arrive in a butcher’s apron, leather cap, long gloves. Not for flair. For cleanup. Because he would shoot prisoners in the back of the skull, one by one, on a conveyor belt of death that often ran all night. He used a German Walther pistol. Soviet pistols jammed too easily, overheated. The Walther was clean, efficient, reliable. That mattered, because on some nights he killed over 200 people. In a single shift.
This wasn’t madness. This was systematized death. Stalin’s purges were a tide of paranoia and brutality, but the machine still needed a cog to grind the bodies into dust. Blokhin was that cog—except unlike most cogs, he was also a believer. A loyalist. A monster molded by state ideology, then sharpened into a precision instrument of terror.
One of his most infamous acts was the Katyn Massacre in 1940. Nearly 22,000 Polish military officers, intellectuals, and civic leaders were executed—murdered in cold blood by the NKVD. Blokhin personally executed 7,000 of them. Over the course of 28 nights. That’s 250 people per night. Think about that: how much cold calculation it takes to kill that many people in a routine way, without a flicker of doubt or revolt. That’s not passion. That’s procedure.
What does it do to a man? Or was there already something gone before the first shot?
There’s an argument to be made—Blokhin was not an aberration. He was a product. The logical conclusion of a regime that demanded loyalty without conscience. In a twisted way, he was everything the Soviet system wanted: obedient, efficient, invisible. You wouldn’t know him from a baker in the street. He wasn’t charismatic. He wasn’t famous. He was effective.
After Stalin’s death, the tide shifted. The very system that forged Blokhin now recoiled at his existence. He was quietly removed from power. Stripped of rank. And then, in 1955, he died—officially of suicide, though as with many things Soviet, the truth is murky. It’s hard not to see it as the regime trying to bury one of its most terrifying ghosts.
Because here’s the thing: dictatorships don’t survive on speeches and banners. They survive on men like Blokhin. Men who don’t flinch. Men who execute the unthinkable literally. He didn’t build the gulags. He didn’t write the orders. But without him? The terror stays on paper.
History remembers Stalin. It remembers Beria. But it tries not to remember Vasily Blokhin. Because remembering him means facing the fact that the machinery of repression doesn’t run on ideology—it runs on people. And sometimes the scariest part isn’t the system.
It’s the man who enjoys working it.
19th-century Yakuza boss Shimizu Jirocho, 1880’s. One of the biggest crime bosses in Japan & one of the richest, most powerful men in the entire country. He had powerful ties to the Japanese government during both the Shogunate & the Meiji restoration
Imagine a man who could straddle two worlds—who could wield the blood-soaked sword of organized crime while walking hand in hand with the architects of a modern nation-state. That was Shimizu Jirocho. If you’re looking for the intersection between crime, honor, nationalism, and modernization in 19th-century Japan, this guy is your nexus point.
By the 1880s, Shimizu Jirocho wasn’t just a crime boss—he was the crime boss. The Don Corleone of Tokugawa twilight and Meiji morning. But that comparison doesn’t even scratch the surface, because Corleone didn’t fund naval expansion, command loyalty from thousands of gamblers and thugs, or broker peace between imperial loyalists and Tokugawa holdouts. Jirocho did.
Here’s the twist: he didn’t start as a mythic figure. Born in 1820 in Shizuoka, Jirocho was the bastard child of a fisherman. He ran away, gambled, fought, hustled, and brawled his way to prominence in a world where violence wasn’t just a possibility—it was currency. He wasn’t some Hollywood antihero. He was a thug. A murderer. A gangster. He killed a man at 23, went into hiding, and emerged as a rising figure in the burgeoning world of the bakuto—the proto-Yakuza gambling underworld.
But this was not the modern Yakuza. The lines were blurrier. Think of it like pre-industrial syndicates—part Robin Hood, part warlord, part community leader. Jirocho commanded an army of criminals, but he also offered protection, settled disputes, funded infrastructure, and helped manage ports. And when the Meiji Restoration detonated Japan’s entire social hierarchy like a political earthquake, Jirocho wasn’t buried—he thrived.
That’s the part that’ll fry your circuits if you’ve grown up thinking of organized crime as something inherently opposed to government power. In Japan, during this chaotic transition from feudal rule to modernity, the distinction between “official” and “criminal” was porous. Jirocho used his influence and manpower to protect the Tokugawa Shogunate’s retreat during the Boshin War—he even ensured the dignified transport and burial of fallen Tokugawa soldiers. And yet when the Meiji government took control, they recruited him.
He became, essentially, a state-sanctioned mob boss.
By the 1870s, he was managing shipping routes for the government. He helped open the port of Shimizu. He became an advocate of modernization, telling his followers to ditch topknots and swords, embrace discipline and enterprise. You could argue he was one of Japan’s first true nationalists—except his nationalism wasn’t born in government halls. It came from the docks, the gambling dens, the blood-slick streets. He wasn’t talking about theoretical loyalty to the emperor—he was enforcing it with muscle, money, and control.
So by the 1880s, this man—who had once stabbed rivals in gambling houses and led death squads on nighttime raids—was one of the wealthiest and most respected figures in Japan. He built schools. Paid for roads. Championed reform. And still had the respect of the underworld.
That’s not a contradiction. That’s the point. Jirocho existed in a time when Japan was molting out of its old skin, and for a brief, electric moment, people like him—outsiders, criminals, warriors—were not just tolerated by the new state. They were essential to it.
Shimizu Jirocho didn’t bend history to his will. He rode it. Bloodied, bruised, but upright. And Japan, in all its contradictions, rode with him.
Muammar Gaddafi with a guard from his “Amazonian” protection detail in Cairo, 1996
It looks absurd. Almost theatrical. Muammar Gaddafi, in Cairo, 1996—standing in his usual flamboyant uniform, sunglasses shielding whatever thoughts were rattling around in that skull of his, flanked by one of his infamous “Amazonian” bodyguards. A female soldier in high boots and mirrored shades, rigid with discipline and draped in an aesthetic pulled straight from a dystopian novel.
But behind the photo op—behind the costuming and the headlines—was something deeply Gaddafi: calculated, performative, and violently unstable.
The “Amazonian Guard,” as the Western press called them, were not just for show. These women were real. Trained in martial arts, weapons, and close-quarters combat. Sworn to celibacy. Handpicked. Allegedly loyal to death. Their purpose was layered: part deterrent, part spectacle, part twisted statement about gender and power. This was Gaddafi’s world, after all, where nothing existed in a single dimension.
In one sense, the Guard was propaganda with legs—literally. Gaddafi loved spectacle, loved to challenge norms, and loved to insert himself into geopolitical space like a disruptive virus. In a Middle East dominated by conservative, patriarchal regimes, he surrounded himself with armed women. It was a middle finger to tradition—but also a smokescreen. Because while the West gawked and speculated, the reality inside Libya was much darker.
Many of the women were not volunteers. Testimonies from defectors years later described horrific abuse, psychological manipulation, and sexual violence. Loyalty was not freely given—it was manufactured through fear. Gaddafi presented the Amazonian Guard as progressive theater. In practice, it was more like a human shield—bodies selected for beauty, obedience, and expendability.
That 1996 visit to Cairo was no different. Gaddafi was deep into his post-Reagan isolationism and pan-African delusions, still holding onto dreams of Arab unity while clashing with Egypt’s more Western-aligned leadership. He didn’t come to negotiate—he came to appear. To project. The Amazonian Guard made that projection iconic. You didn’t just see a dictator. You saw a character, almost cinematic in his villainy. But in real life, the bodies hit the ground when the cameras shut off.
There’s something chilling about that Cairo photo—because it’s the very definition of how authoritarian power dresses itself up. It doesn’t just use fear. It manages optics. Gaddafi weaponized femininity and gender the same way he weaponized oil revenues and anti-imperialist slogans. Not to liberate. Not to empower. But to control. And when the spell broke, in 2011, it broke violently.
One of his bodyguards died throwing herself between him and an assassin. Others fled or were captured. Some told stories too grim to make headlines. And the image—Gaddafi with a female guard in Cairo—was frozen in time. Like a scene from a bad movie.
But real people bled for that performance.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin, his new prime minister Vladimir Putin, and other Russian officials in the Kremlin, 1999.
There’s a photo. It’s 1999. The Kremlin. Russian President Boris Yeltsin—bloated, red-faced, a political relic trying to outpace his own decline—sits flanked by men in suits. Among them is someone who looks almost invisible. Quiet. Watching. Vladimir Putin.
It’s not a triumphant image. It’s not the kind of photo that screams “history is being made.” But it was. Because this was the exact moment the future slipped past the guards.
By 1999, Yeltsin was a wreck. The 1990s had torn Russia apart: economic collapse, gangster capitalism, the Chechen war, IMF bailouts, tanks firing on the parliament building, vodka-soaked statecraft. The West had drunk the Kool-Aid on Yeltsin—this idea that Russia was lurching toward democracy, markets, some kind of post-Soviet sanity. But inside the country, the mood was different. Yeltsin wasn’t seen as a reformer. He was seen as a man who had sold Russia’s soul for cigarettes and Western loans.
So when Yeltsin named Vladimir Putin—former KGB man, head of the FSB, virtually unknown—as prime minister in August 1999, most people shrugged. He was the fifth prime minister in less than two years. No one thought he’d last. Some didn’t even know his name. But the real move wasn’t naming him prime minister.
The real move was grooming him as a successor.
That’s what that Kremlin photo is. The handoff.
Yeltsin’s inner circle—known as “the Family”—was desperate for protection. Their grip was slipping. Corruption investigations were circling. They needed a successor who would guarantee their safety, maintain stability, and ideally not be drunk on live television. Putin was perfect. He was disciplined, loyal, background enough to be shaped, but dangerous enough to intimidate rivals. He wasn’t a politician. He was a project.
Except he wasn’t just their project.
Within months, Putin made his move. The apartment bombings. The Second Chechen War. The sudden rise in popularity. The cold-eyed certainty in press conferences. This was no stand-in. No placeholder. By the time Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999—leaving Putin as acting president—it was already over. The photo from the Kremlin earlier that year was no longer a footnote. It was the prologue.
And if you look closely at that image now, you can see it. Not in the expressions. Not in the posture. But in the absence. Putin isn’t center stage. He’s the shadow. The vacuum. The man who says almost nothing, but absorbs everything. That was his power. He didn’t need to be loud. He didn’t need to be liked. He just needed to outlast the chaos.
Which, of course, he did.
So the 1999 photo isn’t famous. It’s not plastered in textbooks or documentaries. But it should be. Because that’s what real inflection points look like. Not fireworks. Not fanfare.
Just a tired president, a quiet man, and a room that didn’t know it was about to belong to him. Forever.
A 1960s photo of Black-Americans training to not react during a sit-in
Cigarette smoke hangs in the air like a threat. A young Black man leans forward, inches from another’s face, and exhales slowly—deliberately—straight into his eyes. The target doesn’t blink. Doesn’t flinch. Doesn’t move a muscle. He just stares forward, jaw tight, hands folded neatly on the counter.
This isn’t a confrontation in the Deep South. Not yet. This is training. A mock lunch counter set up by civil rights organizers in the 1960s. And the people delivering the abuse? They’re not Klansmen or white segregationists. They’re fellow protestors—recreating the coming storm with almost brutal accuracy.
The idea wasn’t to simulate discomfort. It was to simulate warfare. Psychological warfare. Because the actual sit-ins weren’t going to be peaceful in the way that word gets romanticized today. They were going to be test chambers of human restraint. And what these young people were preparing for was nothing short of controlled trauma.
You don’t casually sit down in a segregated lunch counter in Mississippi or North Carolina and wait to be served. You brace. For slurs. For fists. For hot coffee dumped in your lap. For being dragged outside. For being arrested. You brace for someone to get in your face, scream that you’re subhuman, and blow smoke into your eyes while the manager calls the police.
So they rehearsed it.
This was engineered stoicism. Every drill built toward a single goal: do not react. Because if you so much as raised an arm to shield your face, the photo snapped in that moment would say you were the aggressor. The movement lived or died on optics—and these students knew that the cameras weren’t there to tell the truth. They were there to capture a narrative. You had to control your body as tightly as a soldier grips his weapon.
Which, in a way, is what they were—soldiers. Not in some abstract moral war. But in a street-level campaign of strategic resistance where survival meant never losing control. They weren’t just protesting injustice. They were becoming immune to it, piece by piece, repetition by repetition. Smoke blown in your face by a friend today so you don’t lose your nerve when it’s blown by a stranger tomorrow.
There’s nothing soft about that image. No gentle idealism. Just nerves being stretched and hardened for the fight ahead. A cigarette. A stare. A refusal to break.
History remembers the sit-ins as moments of stillness. But underneath that stillness was a kind of trench warfare—fought not with bullets, but with breath, spit, and restraint so absolute it almost breaks the mind.
Related Posts:
