By Savannah Hamilton
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed here are those of the authors. View more opinions on ScoonTV
People love a good conspiracy theory — shadow governments, secret handshakes in smoke-filled rooms, elites pulling strings while the rest of us watch from the sidelines. It’s easy to see why. When power feels distant, and systems feel incomprehensible, it’s comforting to believe there’s someone specific to blame. Bonus points if it makes for great clickbait on a slow news day.
So it’s no surprise the same question keeps bubbling up again, usually with a smug “just follow the money” attached. Especially after the COVID fiasco, more people are asking: are Western leaders really calling their own shots? Or are they quietly taking orders from bigger forces?
When that speculation resurfaces, a few familiar names pop up. One of them is a little investment firm you’ve likely already heard of — BlackRock.
Ok, so BlackRock is actually enormous yet strangely invisible to the public, deeply embedded in global markets, and persistently present in the same circles as presidents, central bankers, and international power brokers. Understandably, that raises eyebrows. And in a world where institutional trust is collapsing (something CEO Larry Fink himself has openly acknowledged), visibility like that tends to invite scrutiny.
But power today rarely looks like outright ownership. It doesn’t need crowns or secret contracts. It shows up as expertise everyone suddenly needs, infrastructure no one else can match, and a quiet dependence that only becomes obvious when things break.
So maybe the real question isn’t whether BlackRock runs the West — but whether the West has built systems it no longer knows how to operate without.
So WTF Does BlackRock Actually Do?
Simply said, you can think of BlackRock as basically a brokerage on steroids, which brings us to the most important clarification — BlackRock does NOT own most of the money it manages, and it’s not secretly “owning” companies in the way people often imagine.
BlackRock is an asset manager. It invests money on behalf of others — pension funds, retirement accounts, insurance companies, governments, and yes, even your neighbor who owns ETFs but couldn’t explain them if you asked. So, if you have money invested anywhere, there’s a decent chance BlackRock is managing it. That doesn’t mean BlackRock owns your savings. You do.
They also happen to be very good at their job. By recent estimates, BlackRock now oversees around $14 trillion in assets, making it the largest asset manager in the world. That scale alone guarantees influence. When you hold stakes across thousands of companies in nearly every sector, you don’t need to shout. Your vote is already counted.
Oh, and BlackRock isn’t alone in this niche. Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors — the so-called “Big Three” — also wield massive voting power through passive investing. The difference is visibility. Vanguard avoids the spotlight. State Street keeps a lower profile. BlackRock speaks publicly, engages policymakers, and plants itself squarely in the finance–politics overlap.
But much of BlackRock’s real influence doesn’t come from ownership at all. Instead, it comes from infrastructure.
The Magic of Aladdin
Aladdin (short for Asset, Liability, and Debt and Derivative Investment Network) is BlackRock’s proprietary risk-management system, built after Larry Fink’s infamous trading loss in the late 1980s exposed how poorly risk was understood. It began with a simple question, “Where is the risk?” But today, it does far more than that.
Aladdin is now used not just by BlackRock, but by banks, insurers, investors, and government institutions worldwide. It models portfolios, stress-tests markets, assesses liquidity, and standardizes how risk is measured. BlackRock licenses the platform, making it both a major revenue stream and a quiet force shaping modern finance.
Which is where things get interesting.
One could argue that when governments and central banks rely on the same system to analyze risk or navigate crises, seemingly independent decisions naturally start converging. So, BlackRock isn’t issuing orders — but it is shaping how choices get made. Call it influence through structure, not command.
So when critics say BlackRock “owns everything,” that’s not quite right. What it controls is more subtle — data, infrastructure, and the frameworks that define what’s considered responsible or realistic in finance.
And No, It’s Not Blackstone (or Blackwater)
One final important clarification — BlackRock is not Blackstone.
Blackstone is a private equity firm, often criticized for buying up real estate and single-family homes. BlackRock doesn’t do that. The name confusion is common, and it regularly inflates claims about what BlackRock actually is.
And Blackwater? A private military contractor that has long changed its name. Entirely different universe. Not that this absolves BlackRock of scrutiny — but it is necessary to note if you want to reset this conversation on facts.
Speaking of Scrutiny
BlackRock attracts suspicion not because people think Larry Fink is calling world leaders on a red phone, but because the relationship between governments and giant asset managers has evolved — and this becomes very visible during crises.
Trillions in assets, stakes in nearly every major company, constant lobbying, revolving doors of ex-officials. Add behind-the-scenes access, and it’s easy to ask… “Umm, what’s really going on here?” Is this just about smart money making, or is there a bigger power play in the works?
This is where conspiracy theories latch on — WEF ties, “you’ll own nothing” memes, and gossip about unelected power. Fair or not, the optics don’t help.
In practice, this is less about secret control and more about dependence. When crises hit, governments turn to existing expertise. And yes, over time, BlackRock became the go-to here.
In the US, for example, the Federal Reserve relied on BlackRock to help execute emergency bond-buying programs during COVID, effectively outsourcing parts of market stabilization to a private firm. Legal? Yes. Unusual? Not really, especially by 21st-century standards. But it blurred the line between public authority and private influence.
Simply put, governments leaned on BlackRock because it had the tools, data, and speed. BlackRock benefited from legitimacy and access. Each side got what it needed.
No one is issuing commands. No one is technically taking orders. Advice backed by trillions carries weight. Over time, it shapes what feels “practical,” “responsible,” or “inevitable” in policy.
The American Entanglement
Let’s get back to that whole “influence over the West” business.
When people talk about BlackRock’s influence, they look to the US first. Obviously. It’s the world’s largest economy, issuer of the global reserve currency, and home to the deepest capital markets on the planet. So if BlackRock’s influence is gonna show up anywhere, it’s going to be here. That and (of course) because it’s an American company to begin with — NYC born and bred, Wall Street DNA all the way. The home-field advantage is real.
That reality became impossible to ignore during COVID, when the Fed tapped BlackRock to help keep markets functioning. Critics screamed favoritism. Supporters called it competence. But at the end of the day, BlackRock earned fees, credibility, and a reputation as a crisis savior.
Important to note, though, this was uniquely American (although ask a conspiracy theorist and they’ll argue otherwise). The ECB and Bank of England handled their own programs internally. That distinction matters — it shows how tightly Washington and BlackRock are intertwined.
And this wasn’t their first rodeo either. BlackRock had already played a key advisory role during the 2008 financial crisis. Over time, access became routine, and reliance became normal. The revolving door reinforces that. Former regulators and policymakers move in and out, not through conspiracy, but familiarity. Shared assumptions. Shared language. Shared mindsets about what’s “practical” when things start breaking.
Even Trump fits this mold. That said, it’s not always rainbows and sunshine. His relationship with BlackRock has always been transactional, not ideological. He’s attacked ESG rhetoric while keeping ties intact. When it mattered, BlackRock adapted. In moments like these, politics becomes flexible.
So still no, BlackRock doesn’t run the US outright. But the ties here are thicker, messier, and far more visible than anywhere else.
To the EU and Beyond
Across the rest of the West, BlackRock’s presence is quieter — just don’t confuse quiet with absent. It doesn’t play the same front-and-center role it does in the US, but its footprint still shows up everywhere that matters.
Part of that comes down to Europe’s regulatory culture. Layered rules, slower processes, and far less appetite for handing the keys to private firms the way the US does. So BlackRock stays out of the spotlight. Instead, it slips in through advisory roles, consultations, management of public pension assets, and (yours truly) Aladdin.
In the UK, the relationship is especially cozy. BlackRock is formally plugged into pension funds, capital markets, and post-Brexit restructuring efforts. Officials cycle in and out, and meetings stay off-camera. Nothing flashy or scandalous — just the kind of institutional flirting that makes BlackRock feel less like an outsider and more like part of the furniture.
This is where critics argue Europe gets “captured” by process rather than pressure. When decisions drift away from political fights and into technocratic consensus, firms like BlackRock thrive. It doesn’t need to force an ideology — it simply reads the room and responds right back.
ESG is the best example here. In Europe, it’s not a culture-war issue but policy by default. BlackRock didn’t invent that environment, but it adapted to it, amplified it, and helped define what “compliance” looks like at scale. Again, not control but calibration.
Going Global
The same quiet game plays out globally. BlackRock isn’t barking orders in Brussels, London, or Tokyo, but shows up wherever governments crave calm markets over chaos. Influence that’s felt more than seen.
Lately, though, that footprint has been creeping into other corners of the world. In China, BlackRock doubled down, becoming the first foreign firm to run a fully owned mutual fund business there. Critics call it reckless. Supporters call it pragmatic. Either way, money still talks.
Elsewhere in emerging markets, including parts of Africa, the strategy is slower and smaller — modest stakes, infrastructure footholds, consulting roles, long-term positioning. Boring, until it isn’t.
And then there’s Ukraine — the next big thing. BlackRock’s advisory role in the postwar “prosperity plan” (that ambitious $800 billion rebuild dream) put the firm back in headlines. Officially, it’s about structuring investments and mobilizing private capital. But plenty of people are side-eyeing the situation, saying it smells like a setup to steer reconstruction toward Western corporate priorities. The counter? Without a firm that can actually mobilize that kind of money and know-how, good luck making it happen.
Both sides have a point. But once again, BlackRock isn’t running the show — it’s helping design the stage.
Oh, and that quiet global game we’ve been talking about? It gets its spotlight when it reaches the elite big leagues — the World Economic Forum, where BlackRock’s not just another name in the room but arguably the guest of honor.
Inside the Globalist Inner Circle
No conversation about BlackRock’s influence escapes Davos, which insists it’s “just a conference” with no decisions, no votes, no authority. Just ideas, dialogue, and some very elite vibes.
And yet, every year, the same people arrive — heads of state, central bankers, CEOs, regulators, the who’s who of what’s what — and every year, the same ideas leave with them. Consensus, if you will, turning into policy later.
BlackRock fits this world perfectly. And Larry Fink is basically a permanent fixture (interim co-chair of the WEF, no less). So are the officials who oversee his firm and the governments that rely on its money. The revolving door spins so smoothly you almost miss it. One minute you’re advising a central bank, the next you’re swapping notes on climate risk with the people writing the rules. Cozy, ain’t it?
Then there’s RFK Jr., who once would not shut up about how BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street were “owning everything,” secretly snatching homes, capturing corporations, dooming people to a globalist nightmare. Viral social media posts and feudalism metaphors. The works. But since stepping into the HHS Secretary role? Silence. Either loyalty kicked in — or there’s another conspiracy waiting to be written.
To be fair, the WEF isn’t some secret bunker full of lizard people (at least so they claim). It’s more like an expensive diplomatic echo chamber with excellent catering and champagne. By the time invitations go out, most attendees already agree on the fundamentals, be it open markets, climate action, or economic growth.
Different opinions don’t get banned necessarily — they just never make it to the talking points. When the whole room agrees on a playlist, anyone off-beat sounds like the kid asking about math homework in the middle of prom.
That’s why the “you’ll own nothing and be happy” line hits so hard here. It captures the sense that rules are being rewritten by people who never have to live under them. BlackRock didn’t coin the phrase, but being Davos royalty makes it the easiest target when people ask, “Wait, who exactly voted for this?”
Fink’s recent Davos remarks even acknowledged the tension (and arguably that they’re a product of it). Wealth exploded after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it didn’t trickle down as promised. And now AI, he warned, could hit white-collar workers the way globalization hit blue-collar ones. Genuine concern or polished PR? You decide.
Either way, when a firm sitting on trillions decides what “responsible capitalism” means, skepticism is inevitable.
Cracks in the Narrative
Here’s where the idea that BlackRock “runs everything” starts to crack. If it truly ruled the world, it wouldn’t keep retreating when politics got spicy? Because power still collides with politics — and politics bites back.
Take Trump, whose relationship with BlackRock has always been messy and transactional. Mutual respect, but deals only happen when interests align. His open hostility toward “woke” ESG forced a choice — ideology or access. And ultimately, without hesitation, BlackRock chose access.
At the start of Trump’s second term (and his anti-DEI executive orders), the shift was obvious. DEI has vanished from annual reports. Diversity targets quietly faded, and the DEI team got shoved into the blandly named “Talent and Culture” unit. Critics called it a full retreat from the leftist agenda Trump loved to trash.
And they weren’t wrong. Whatever grand globalist agenda critics imagined proved flexible when confronted with real political power. That doesn’t mean BlackRock lost influence — just that it isn’t absolute. The firm adapts rather than bulldozes. It also shows the firm adapts to political reality instead of trying to bulldoze through it.
If BlackRock really ran the show, it wouldn’t have to bend the knee. It would be the other way around. But bending is exactly how it survives without burning the bridges it depends on.
So maybe BlackRock doesn’t run governments outright. Leaders can push back, force retreats, and demand changes when pressure mounts. But governments don’t operate entirely free of BlackRock either. The firm adjusts just enough to stay indispensable, keeps channels open, and ensures its real influence remains largely behind the scenes.
That may not be shadow control — but in the long run, it can be just as powerful.
So, Who Benefits More?
That’s the multi-trillion-dollar question.
Governments get speed, know-how, data, and voter popularity points when shit hits the fan. In return, BlackRock gets legitimacy, VIP access, and a front-row seat to how policy actually gets made. Neither side’s fully in charge — but together they keep the world spinning (and arguably also keep each other alive).
The real risk isn’t some secret cabal pulling puppet strings from the shadows. It’s sneakier. Because when advice comes backed by trillions, killer tech, and a solid track record of fixing crises, it starts feeling like the only realistic option.
Slowly, the “smart” choices narrow, not because anyone’s holding a gun to anyone’s head, but because going along is just… easier.
That’s why people keep taking everything BlackRock does with a grain of salt. It’s too big to ignore, too private to vote out, and too deeply embedded to remove without consequences.
So, is BlackRock running the West? Not exactly.
But the West has wired itself so deeply into firms like this that “optional influence” stopped being optional a long time ago.
Curtis Scoon is the founder of ScoonTv.com Download the ScoonTv App to join our weekly livestream every Tuesday @ 8pm EST! Support true independent media. Become a VIP member www.scoontv.com/vip-signup/ and download the ScoonTv App from your App Store.
Support Independent Media Donate to ScoonTV https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/donatescoontv
