BlackRock CEO Larry Fink confesses agenda of Apex Players

It would be an exaggeration to say that BlackRock owns the world.

It would be a smaller exaggeration to say that BlackRock controls the world.

The three biggest shareholders in major corporations are BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, and they all own a significant share of each other. However, BlackRock is a bigger shareholder of the other two than vice versa. So it would be fair to say that BlackRock is the most powerful shareholder of corporations in the world.

Consider that shareholders can vote to replace the CEO and the board of directors in a corporation, but most shareholders are passive and do not vote; therefore, whoever is the largest shareholder is usually the deciding vote, and when the three biggest shareholders are all on the same page, then they could theoretically replace the leadership of any corporation with whom they disagree—for any reason—even personal or political reasons.

When one shareholder can largely decide for the other two, then it is that one shareholder—BlackRock—who could theoretically dictate the personal, cultural, political, biological, and religious characteristics of the leadership of every major corporation.

Such behavior would be contrary to BlackRock’s putative sole purpose, which is to maximize profit, because it is the companies in which it invests that have proven they know how to make a profit in their industry. Therefore, if BlackRock is what it claims to be, then it would never interfere in the corporations in which it invests—let alone force irrational decisions on all of them that favor politics over profits.

However, on November 9, 2017, BlackRock co-founder and CEO Larry Fink confessed that they do indeed force irrational politically correct policies on all of the corporations in which they invest:

Well, behaviors are gonna have to change, and this is one thing we’re gonna—we’re asking companies—you have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock we are forcing behaviors. 54% of the incoming class are women. We added four more points in terms of diverse employment this year. What we were doing internally is, if you don’t achieve these levels of impact, your compensation could be impacted. So you have to force behaviors, and if you don’t force behaviors, whether it’s gender, or race, or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you’re gonna be impacted, and that’s not just not recruiting, it is development (as Ken said), and ultimately, it’s still gonna take time but I am just as much shocked as Ken is that we have not seen more opportunities, and we’re gonna have to force change.

–Larry Fink, CEO, BlackRock, November 9, 2017

That was a sufficient confession to prove that BlackRock is enforcing ESG and conformity across the corporate world, which also enables us to deduce that BlackRock is not what it claims to be. However, Larry Fink then more explicitly confessed when Steve Lipin asked him a question a few minutes later.

[Steve Lipin:] Larry and Ken, I think we agreed. How do you force change though? I mean, Larry, BlackRock has really been in the forefront of the ESG movement within corporate governance and a real leader, and yet change is so slow, and so what is—and Ken as well—what—how do you force change when it is so incremental and so gradual? How do you do something more radical? Have you thought about that? Has the board of American Express thought about more radical things we could do to enhance diversity and inclusion?

[Larry Fink:] Well I could speak about BlackRock’s board, but it doesn’t come from the board, it comes from the—it really has to come from the leadership of the firms, and if the leadership of the firms are not doing the changes, hopefully the [BlackRock] board forces that change, and if not it’s gonna be the shareholders. Okay, hopefully the shareholders don’t have to do it in our [BlackRock’s] vote, but I in my last corporate letter I spoke about it. I would just say something to tie in what you said in the first question related to PR and HR. I hope it doesn’t come that. I hope it’s never part of HR because it has to be imbued in the culture of a firm. It has to be talked about asked to be shown. Behaviors across the entire firm in every region have to be similar, and every citizen of the firm has to understand what is acceptable behaviors and what are unacceptable behaviors.

Anyone who has been paying attention knew that someone was forcing companies across the board to value politics over profits. Look at what Disney did to Star Wars or what Anheuser-Busch did to Bud Light. Those are just two of countless examples.

A source inside of the multi-billion dollar corporation, Kantar, told me that one week after George Floyd died, the North American CEO, Reed Cundiff, told his 2,200 employees that all of the white employees don’t get it because they are white, and that they all should read “White Privilege”. He reported that the CEO also said that Kantar was 100% behind BLM and would donate $100,000 to BLM. It was around that time that the CEO reportedly asked everyone to put their pronouns in their email signature blocks. My source reported that the CEO seemed like a likeable friendly guy who sincerely believed what he was saying—so not the kind of flaming asshole you might be imagining.

About two months after Reed Cundiff became CEO, Bain Capital bought a 60% stake in Kantar, About 11 months after that, the George Floyd incident happened.

As far as I know, BlackRock does not own any part of Bain Capital or Kantar, so how were they making they same kind of irrational decisions as those enforced by BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street?

Another source from inside another (more conservative) multi-billion dollar corporation told me that their CTO explained to everyone in 2021 that he had been an EMT for 30 years, so he knew that anyone working for him who thought Ivermectin was anything other than horse paste had been brainwashed by Russian propaganda! It was around that same time that he reported the CEO of that company had allowed the vaccinated employees to stop wearing masks, but when he learned that the vaccines did little to prevent contraction and transmission, he said that those employees still did not have to wear masks because at least they cared enough to get vaccinated!

The CEO of that company is the son of the founder, so if a third party investor owned a large minority block of shares, it still could not remove him, so why would that company’s leadership suddenly value politics over profits to the same extent as those controlled by BlackRock and Bain Capital?

Larry Fink is obviously not one of the Apex Players. He is a front man, and the CEOs of the other two corporation are so much lower than Larry Fink that they are unwitting front men. They are simply easily played. They are good boys, so they get to keep their toys. At some level, they understand that if they used their wealth and power to pose even the slightest threat to the agenda of the Apex Players, measures more visceral than BlackRock shareholder votes would manifest in their lives. Initially, it would be like what happened to the founder and CEO of Papa Johns, and if that didn’t work, there is always the NSA, CIA, FBI …. or worse.

The Apex Players are above presidents and billionaires, and some of the secret owners of BlackRock, Vanguard, and State State Street might be among the Apex Players—just as some of the secret owners of the Federal Reserve might be among the Apex Players.

We have known for decades that an activist Supreme Court (e.g. when they invented sexual harassment) has created a race in which companies are forced to be far more politically correct than the law currently demands because they know they can be successfully sued ten years from now for actions today that are legal and acceptable. Companies thus are forced to be at the vanguard of political correctness to stay ahead of activist courts, but their over compensation expands the Overton Window of what is acceptable for activist courts. This dynamic is thus part of the self-reinforcing downward spiral of toxicity that characterizes our age—The Toxic Age.

We live in a cronyist society. A cronyist society is the product of a centralized society. A centralized society is the product of a controlled society. A controlled society is the product of conspiracy.

Cronyism is at the heart of what is wrong with the people, but thanks to Larry Fink’s confession, we now know a material vector by which cronyism is injected into society from the top.

In a free-market society, new companies could arise and out compete these irrational crony corporations. That is why the Apex Players must use government to create barriers to entry and to stifle competition. Their power is now so great that they need 100% control over the media to maintain their power. If they allowed just one honest media corporation to compete freely, it would soon get all of the business, but more importantly, it would pierce the illusion of legitimacy, without which, they are finished.

To be clear, the Apex Players do not give two farts about women, blacks, LGBTs, or political correctness. Those are just a means to an end—total global control over every individual. To achieve their goal they must weaken that which is naturally strong, and they must strengthen that which is naturally weak.

About the Author

>