The Prediction of Julian Assange
I'm now thinking that this statement by Julian Assange was not hyperbole:
"When all is exposed, 98% of Washington will fall."
I'm now thinking that this statement by Julian Assange was not hyperbole:
"When all is exposed, 98% of Washington will fall."
I posted this on FB, where inconvenient facts go to die:
Many people don't want to know what is going on unless it helps their tribe. If this describes you, you are a coward who is addicted to the illusion of righteousness. I challenge you to summon the courage to see current events in historical context. Virtually all national politicians and corporate media are massively corrupt and dishonest. They don't give a shit about the people they claim to serve. If you say adios to your tribe, you'll see the raw world in all of its complexities, disappointments and possibilities. You'll stop being such a dupe. You'll stop wasting energy to defend the undefendable. You'll start thinking for yourself again.
I voted for Obama twice. Tulsi Gabbard's accusations (substantiated by hundreds of newly declassified documents) show that the conduct of Obama's WH (including Obama himself) was despicable. This was an attack on democracy itself. I would like to see this matter vigorously investigated and prosecuted. I cross-posted this on FB, where I expect that some people on FB will avoid the facts by launching baseless ad hominem attacks on Tulsi Gabbard.
As as far as Obama's character, it was already in question. I agree completely with Joe Rogan.
https://youtu.be/JmaZR8E12bs?si=xDyDPl2OnWfndqKn
REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.
"We think the President is the most powerful person in the world—but the real power lies with Larry Fink."BlackRock’s CEO controls $10 TRILLION in assets, dictating corporate behavior through ESG—a system so corrupt that even Elon Musk called the "S in ESG Satanic."
Why? Because when Philip Morris gets a higher ESG score than Tesla, something is deeply broken.
The Goal? Control. Not just money—these elites already have billions. They want to reshape society by forcing companies to comply with their ideology.
The Mindset? Look at George Soros, who admitted: "I fancied myself as some kind of God... I carried messianic fantasies."
The Scary Reality:
- BlackRock, Vanguard, & State Street control 90% of S&P 500 companies.
- ESG is a weapon—punish dissenters, reward loyalists.
- Politicians come and go… but these financiers stay forever.
I am haunted by the thoughts that:
The national politicians repeatedly make promises to make life better for the citizens, but they break those promises. These same politician aren't using their independent judgment. They appear to be controlled. This goes on and one, with zero hope that it will change. As George Carlin stated. "It's a big club and you ain't in it."
For clarification, I asked Grok whether it's true that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street "control" 90$ of the S&P 500 companies. Grok:
No, it is not true that BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street control 90% of S&P 500 companies. The claim likely stems from misunderstandings or exaggerations about their influence as major asset managers. Here's a breakdown based on available data:- **Ownership Stakes**: BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, often called the "Big Three," are among the largest shareholders in many S&P 500 companies due to their management of index funds and ETFs, such as those tracking the S&P 500. Research from 2017 indicates they collectively constitute the largest shareholder in about 88% of S&P 500 firms, but their individual stakes in these companies are typically less than 10% each. For example, Vanguard might hold around 8-9%, BlackRock 6-7%, and State Street 3-4% in companies like Apple or Microsoft. Their combined ownership in the S&P 500 is estimated to be around 15-20%, not 90%.[](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/23/vanguard-blackrock-state-street-dont-own-major-us-corporations.html)[](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politics/article/hidden-power-of-the-big-three-passive-index-funds-reconcentration-of-corporate-ownership-and-new-financial-risk/30AD689509AAD62F5B677E916C28C4B6)[](https://www.flagshipfinancialtn.com/blog/do-vanguard-blackrock-and-state-street-run-the-world)
- **Assets Under Management**: As of recent data, BlackRock manages around $10 trillion, Vanguard about $10.4 trillion, and State Street approximately $4 trillion in assets. While their combined $24 trillion is significant, it represents investments on behalf of clients (e.g., pension funds, individual investors), not direct ownership. The total market capitalization of the S&P 500 is roughly $50 trillion (as of 2025), so their managed assets are substantial but don’t equate to controlling 90% of the index.[](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/12/opinion/vanguard-power-blackrock-state-street.html)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group)
- **Voting Power**: The Big Three exert influence through proxy voting, as they vote on behalf of their clients’ shares. This gives them significant sway in corporate governance, but they don’t "control" companies in the sense of dictating operations. Their voting is often coordinated through centralized governance departments, and they tend to support management in about 90% of votes, which some argue limits competition or innovation, but it’s not outright control.[](https://blackrockvanguardwatch.com/)[](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politics/article/hidden-power-of-the-big-three-passive-index-funds-reconcentration-of-corporate-ownership-and-new-financial-risk/30AD689509AAD62F5B677E916C28C4B6)[](https://theconversation.com/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america-77072)
- **Misinformation**: Claims like the 90% figure often appear in social media or commentary, such as by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Vivek Ramaswamy, but these are not supported by data. For instance, RFK Jr.’s claim that they own 89% of the S&P 500 has been debunked as confusing beneficial ownership (holding shares for clients) with direct control.[](https://www.quora.com/RFK-said-that-BlackRock-StateStreet-and-Vanguard-own-89-of-the-S-P-500-Is-that-true)[](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/already-own-89-p-500-113144903.html)
- **Context on Influence**: While their concentration raises concerns about market power—potentially reducing competition or amplifying their influence on issues like ESG (environmental, social, governance)—they don’t own or control 90% of the S&P 500. Critics like Bernie Sanders highlight their dominance, noting they’re major shareholders in 95% of S&P 500 firms, but this refers to shareholding, not total control.[](https://www.etfstream.com/articles/bernie-sanders-blackrock-vanguard-and-state-street-oligarchy-threatens-democracy)
In summary, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are major players with significant stakes and voting power in the S&P 500, but the 90% control claim is a gross exaggeration. Their combined influence is closer to 15-20% of the index’s shares, driven by passive investing trends, not a monolithic grip on corporate America. Always dig into primary data like SEC filings or academic studies for clarity, as public narratives can inflate these figures for effect.[
As a person who voted for Obama, Clinton and Biden I am horrified to learn of the deep corruption of Obama et al, including Obama's weaponization of the U.S. security state coordinated with the willing assistance of the lapdog corporate media. The DNC has no respect for the electoral process (e.g., what they did to Bernie in 2016, the dropout of moderate candidates and the continuing campaign of Elizabeth Warren to assist Biden in the 2020 primaries, the lies about Biden's fitness and most recently, the anointment of Kamala Harris without a vote). And don't forget the Hunter Biden Laptop lies by the DNC allied U.S. security state. What we are now learning about Obama's exit strategy from office--it appears to be an intentional and potentially criminal disenfranchisement of those who voted for Trump--is icing on the cake.
Matt Taibbi, author of an article that connects the dots: "In Brutal Document Release, the Russia Hoax is Finally Exposed: Official claim that Putin "aspired" to help Trump was based on four pieces of evidence, all bogus, even "ridiculous," according to long-suppressed report just released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard."
It was worse than we thought.The January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin “developed a clear preference” for Donald Trump and “aspired to help his chances of victory” is revealed in a report released this morning by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to have been based on four pieces of evidence. One was the Steele Dossier. The surprise is that the other three were even less credible, each included over objections of the report’s CIA authors.