Tag: Americas

Bill Gates’ investments in patented fertilizers, fake meat and US farmland is doing more for his bank account than the planet according to a new book.

Written by author and investigative journalist Seamus Bruner, the book which was released this week, also claims that the billionares investments in fertilizers and plant-based meats are doing little to slow carbon emissions.

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

Bruner says that Gates is doing all this under the guise of saving the planet while actually inflating his net worth and trying to seize a monopoly on a vegan future.

The Mail Online reports: A section of the just-released book titled Controligarchs, that hones in on this so-called ‘war on farmers’ elaborates on these claims.

There, Bruner writes how figures like Gates are monopolizing the nation’s food supply with their purchases, paving the way for an at least partial takeover over the country’s food system as families like the Rockefellers have done in the past.

Citing the Microsoft founder’s recent investments in patented fertilizers, fake meat, and some 270,000 acres of American farmland, Bruner writes how Gates – an outspoken advocate for climate action – will capitalize on his speculations.

The takeover of the food system, like so many other control schemes in this book, began with the Rockefellers and was advanced by Bill Gates,’ Bruner writes in his study of the influence billionaires have over Americans.

 ‘Like most of their monopolies – from oil to software and eventually biotechnology – the takeover of food is all about controlling the intellectual property of food production through trademarks, copyrights, and patents,’ he continues.

He goes on to write about Gates’ supposed connection to the Rockefellers through ‘the Green Revolution,’ a period of great increase in production of food grains in the US during the first half of the 19th century.

Those advances, Bruner says, were only made possible by millions of dollars of Rockefeller-funded research in the 1940s, which at the time had been billed to help solve the crises of poverty and starvation in the wake of the Great Depression.

While Bruner concedes this is true in part, the author goes on to write how the Rockefellers – currently valued at $8.4billion among 70 heirs – went on to take credit for the fruits of the effort, while deflecting blame for the negatives.

The negatives, he pointed out, included pollution created by pesticides, and the  consolidation of small farms into sprawling operations – things Gates’s investments appear to support. 

‘The Green Revolution was simultaneous proof that problems like poverty and famine could be solved through human innovation and that the solutions, such as genetically modified pesticide-resistant crops, can present new problems,’ Bruner writes.

Citing ‘pollution, resource exhaustion and the consolidation of small-scale and family-owned farms into giant corporate-controlled farms,’ the writer explains how he believes history is now repeating itself and how he Gates is looking to obtain the intellectual property of food production through a series of trademarks and patents.

‘Rather than take responsibility for the new problems,’ he writes, ‘the Rockefellers took all the credit for the crop abundance while blaming the new problems on the convenient scapegoat of climate change.

‘Now, the Controligarchs [Gates and other investors] claim they can solve the climate crisis with new patented miracle products that happen to make themselves even richer and, once again, at the expense of small-scale independent farmers.’

Late last year, Gates defended his recent interest in agriculture on a Reddit AMA, after many accused him of buying ‘the majority’ of American farmland as part of a plot to cause food shortages.

‘I own less than 1/4000 of the farmland in the US,’ he wrote at the time, after snapping up several thousand acres across 18 states.

In his book, Bruner cites how Gates has invested millions of dollars in companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods – stocks that would likely rise in the event of a shortage. 

He claimed the businessman – the sixth person in the world with a net worth of $115.4billion – could reap the benefits with his other food-related investments.

‘It should come as no surprise that while the peasants are expected to eat fermented fungi, lab-grown meats, and maggot milkshakes, the Controligarchs – with their private chefs – have no intention of doing the same,’ Bruner writes.

‘Bill Gates and Warren Buffett famously love eating beef burgers and steaks when Gates visits his mentor in Omaha,’ he then points out, mentioning Gate’s 93-year-old friend and fellow billionaire.

He adds that Mark Zuckerberg – another investor in alternative protein companies – ‘likes smoking beef brisket and grilling pork ribs (from real cows and pigs) and says meats taste “doubly better when you hunt an animal for yourself,”‘ to illustrate his belief the billionaires, Gates included, have ulterior motives.

At another point in the book Bruner comments on Gate’s recent investments in the fertilizer industry, and how they come in conjunction with over $1 billion dollars spent on farms and the new technologies that run them.

Those assertions come months after United Nations initiative aimed at ‘eliminating extreme poverty, reducing inequality, and protecting the planet’ pushed to ban more traditional and affordable crop nutrients, leaving farmers irate.

Bruner notes how the restrictions on traditional fertilizer that the farmers argue would ruin them were only put into place ‘after Gates and his buddies had secured the intellectual property for the replacement fertilizers.’

‘For more than a decade, as he was targeting the fertilizer industry, Bill Gates has also been quietly buying up large swaths of American farmland,’ the author states.

‘All told, Gates has spent over $1 billion dollars on farm acquisitions and the Agenda 2030-compliant technologies they now employ.’ Agenda 2030 is the aforementioned United Nations initiative

Bruner continues: ‘When Gates buys tens of thousands of acres, he is not just buying the land — he is also buying the rights to water below ground. 

‘In addition to farms (and the irrigation) and fertilizer, Gates has been hunting for sizable interests in water and water treatment — a crucial component when seeking to control the agricultural industry.’

In a statement sent Tuesday afternoon, a spokesperson for Gates slammed those claims – calling them outright ‘false.’

The rep told DailyMail.com: ‘Bill’s farmland holdings represent less than 1/10th of one percent of the U.S. total. 

Latest posts by Niamh Harris (see all)

Top Bank of England policymaker Catherine Mann has warned that Net Zero policies are pushing up inflation and hitting economic growth.

Mann, a member of the interest rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee says Climate change policies, including carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, risk raising costs for families as companies pass the extra costs on to their customers.

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

However, she does not see that as a reason to oppose them. Mann was part of a minority of three Monetary Policy Committee members who voted this month for the BoE to raise its main interest rate to 5.5% from 5.25%

The Telegraph reports: Economists have found “that carbon taxes, public investments, and subsidies are all inflationary”, she told an audience at the University of Oxford.

Ms Mann added: “Evidence has suggested upward pressure on inflation [and] downward effects on output.”

The warning comes at a tough time for the Bank of England and for British households, with inflation still running at 6.7pc. This is more than three times the Bank’s 2pc target. At the same time the economy is flatlining.

It comes after the Government rowed back on some of its net zero policies, delaying a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035. In September the Prime Minister also said he would delay the ban on new oil-fired boilers from 2026 to 2035, and increase grants for heat pumps.

The Bank of England itself has faced criticism for its focus on climate change, a move promoted by former governor Mark Carney in departure from its traditional role of concentrating on interest rates and the state of the banking system.

But Ms Mann hit back at this criticism on Monday, arguing the Bank’s interest in climate change and net zero policies is critical because they affect inflation.

“Not only is it within my remit to respond to the macroeconomic effects of climate change, but, in my view, my remit requires me to do so,” she said.

“When climate change has macroeconomic effects – whether physical impacts from extreme weather events and higher average temperatures or transition effects associated with transforming to a net zero economy, including explicit implications for inflation – it becomes a concern for monetary policymakers, directly within a price stability mandate. 

“That applies whether the monetary policymaker’s remit includes a reference to climate change or not.”

Latest posts by Niamh Harris (see all)

The Biden regime has quietly and deceitfully signed an executive order granting them total control over the Internet and giving themselves the power to regulate it in the name of “equity.”

The fate of the internet hangs in the balance as its future is set to come to a vote at the Federal Communications Commission on November 15.

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

FCC Commissioner Brandon Carr blew the whistle on the Biden administration for its attempted Internet “takeover” in a memorandum on the Wednesday meeting.

“So last month, President Biden gave the FCC its marching orders,” Carr declared. “The President called on the FCC to implement a one-page section of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) by adopting new rules of breathtaking scope, all in the name of ‘digital equity.’ For the first time ever, those rules would give the federal government a roving mandate to micromanage nearly every aspect of how the Internet functions—from how ISPs allocate capital and where they build, to the services that consumers can purchase; from the profits that ISPs can realize and how they market and advertise services, to the discounts and promotions that consumers can receive. Talk about central planning.”

“Needless to say, Congress never contemplated the sweeping regulatory regime that President Biden asked the FCC to adopt—let alone authorized the agency to implement it,” he went on.

“Nonetheless, the Commission will vote next week, on November 15th, to put President Biden’s plan in place. A draft of the FCC order implementing President Biden’s plan is available here. I oppose the plan for several reasons.”

Richieallen.co.uk reports: The FCC Commissioner then laid out the reasons he opposes the Biden Internet takeover, namely, “President Biden’s plan hands the Administrative State effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the country.”

He notes that the text of the order expressly provides that the FCC would be “empowered, for the first time, to regulate each and every ISP’s”:

• “network infrastructure deployment, network reliability, network upgrades, network maintenance, customer-premises equipment, and installation”;
• “speeds, capacities, latency, data caps, throttling, pricing, promotional rates, imposition of late fees, opportunity for equipment rental, installation time, contract renewal terms, service termination terms, and use of customer credit and account history”;
• “mandatory arbitration clauses, pricing, deposits, discounts, customer service, language options, credit checks, marketing or advertising, contract renewal, upgrades, account termination, transfers to another covered entity, and service suspension.”

“As exhausting as it is to read that list, the FCC itself says it is not an exhaustive li,” Carr continues. “The Biden Administration’s plan empowers the FCC to regulate every aspect of the Internet sector for the first time ever. The plan is motivated by an ideology of government control that is not compatible with the fundamental precepts of free market capitalism.”

“But it gets worse,” he adds. “The FCC reserves the right under this plan to regulate both ‘actions and omissions, whether recurring or a single instance.’ In other words, if you take any action, you may be liable, and if you do nothing, you may be liable. There is no path to complying with this standardless regime. It reads like a planning document drawn up in the faculty lounge of a university’s Soviet Studies Department.”

Carr also extensively fact-checked the alleged “myths” being put out by the Biden administration to further its bid to tightly regulate the Internet.

In his fact check, Carr notes the hysterical claims that the end of Net Neutrality turned out to be just that — hysterical claims.

Biden in February quietly issued an executive order stating his administration’s intention to regulate the Internet based on the goals of promoting “diversity” and equity.

It is called the “Executive Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government.”

A phrase from the executive order caused a number of people to become concerned:

When designing, developing, acquiring, and using artificial intelligence and automated systems in the Federal Government, agencies shall do so, consistent with applicable law, in a manner that advances equity.

The implementation of the executive order would entail a “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (DEI) board that would supervise the rollout of AI to promote “equity” — an anomalous term that can be defined to fit any bureaucratic action.