BlackRock Recruiter Claims Senators Can Be ‘Bought’ For $10k, War ‘Good For Business’: O’Keefe
In a series of covertly-recorded meetings, recruiter Serge Varlay describes how BlackRock – the world’s largest asset manager – is able to “run the world,” and that it’s easier to pull off shenanigans when “people aren’t thinking about it.”
According to Varlay, US Senators can be ‘bought’ for as little as $10k.
“The senators…are f***ing cheap – you got 10 grand, you can buy a senator,” he remarked.
You can take this big f*** ton of money and buy people, I work for a company called BlackRock…It’s not who is the president it’s who is controlling the wallet of the president. You could buy your candidates. First, there is the senators these guys are fuckin cheap. Got 10 grand you can buy a senator I’ll give you 500k right now It doesn’t matter who wins they’re in my pocket. –OMG
Blackrock is also apparently loving the war in Ukraine, which Varley described as “real fuckin’ good for business.”
Ukraine is good for business, you know that right? Russia blows up Ukraine’s grain silos and the price of wheat is going to go mad up. The Ukrainian economy is the wheat market. The price of bread goes up, this is fantastic if you’re trading. Volatility creates opportunity for profit…
According to Varley, it’s “exciting when shit goes wrong.”
“So what are you gonna do if you’re a trading firm? The moment that news hits, within a millisecond, you’re going to pump trades into whoever the wheat suppliers are. Into their stocks. Within an hour or two that stick goes f*cking up and then you sell and you just make, I don’t know, however many mil,” he continued. “The Ukrainian economy is tied very largely to the wheat market, global wheat market, prices of bread, you know, literally everything goes up and down. This is fantastic if you’re trading.
“Volatility creates opportunity to make profit. War is real fucking good for business.”
Watch:
BREAKING: @BlackRock Recruiter Who “Decides People’s Fate” Spills Info on Company’s World Impact
“It’s not who the president is- it’s who’s controlling the wallet of the president”
“You got $10K? You can buy a senator”
“War is real f***ing good for business” #BlackRockExposed pic.twitter.com/DZIy1DuZKF
— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 20, 2023
As the Post Millennial notes, Varley also described himself as a person who “decide[s] people’s fates.”
“Every f*cking day, I literally decide how somebody’s life is going to be shaped,” he said. “I’m not actually a finance guy, I just know what happens because I’m recruiting people who do these things.”
More via the PM:
Varlay said these banks run the world because “you acquire stuff. You diversify, you acquire, you keep acquiring. You spend whatever you make in acquiring more. And at a certain point, your risk level is super low. Imagine you’ve invested in 10 different industries, from food to drinks to technology. If one of them fails it doesn’t matter, you have nine others to back you up.”
Varlay said that once “you own a little bit of everything… you can take this big f*ck-ton of money and then you can start to buy people.”
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: Patriotman
4 Comments
Comments are closed.
GUNS N GEAR
Seeking Alpha.com a trading website now censors all negative comments about BlockRock. Also, negative comments relating to companies following a woke agenda are also censored. Free speech is no longer free in America. Who is $ John Galt?
A company only selectively publishing comments or content is not a restriction of free speech.
The first amendment is intended to deny the government the ability to restrict or censor speech, not companies or individuals on their own platforms.
No, it’s a restriction of free speech. What is not is a violation of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution. They’re not the same thing.
I disagree- nobody is keeping said commenters from airing their views publicly or otherwise, someone is just choosing not to host them on their platform. If that company actively tried to prevent them from publicly airing said views, that would be a restriction, or at least an attempted one. The owner of that website also has the right to freedom of speech, which includes NOT airing content they don’t agree with. If they were forced to publish content they don’t agree with, that would likewise be restricting their freedom of speech. Should this site have to publish every comment that goes into the spam pile?
And I do understand that the first amendment and freedom of speech are not the same thing.