It's owned by the British Crown (King Charles). BUT King Charles (cock n spanneriel) is owned by the (super powerful finger in every pie) Rothschilds - same ones Epstein worked for - See pictures below). The fight for Canada is a fight for the resources under the land there. --------------------- Here's the long explanation for those who're actually interested: Luongo's basic interpretation In Luongo's framework, Carney is essentially a City-of-London/financial-establishment operator being deployed at a strategically important moment. The logic goes roughly like this: 1. Canada is an enormous resource base. Canada has energy, uranium, oil, gas, minerals, agricultural resources and enormous landmass. In Luongo's worldview, those resources become extremely important as the global monetary/energy system is being reorganised. 2. Carney is unusually connected to the international financial system. This isn't speculative: Carney worked at Goldman Sachs for 13 years, was Governor of the Bank of Canada, then Governor of the Bank of England, and later chaired the Financial Stability Board. And there is an interesting primary-source detail that fits very neatly into Luongo's argument: in a 2008 speech in the City of London, Carney himself described London's historical role in financing Canadian infrastructure and commodities and said Canada had been a major beneficiary of London's financial innovation. Luongo would look at that career trajectory and say: this isn't a conventional Canadian politician who happened to become PM; this is someone formed inside the international financial architecture. 3. Trump changes the equation This is the really important part. Luongo sees Trump's project as an attempt to break or restructure the existing global financial order, particularly the parts associated with the European/City-of-London establishment. So if Trump is trying to pull Canada, Mexico and ultimately the Western Hemisphere into a much more explicitly US-centred economic and resource system, then Canada becomes an extraordinarily important battleground. And Carney, in Luongo's interpretation, represents the alternative: That's why Luongo doesn't interpret Carney's resistance to Trump simply as Canadian nationalism. He'd say something closer to: “You're watching a fight over who controls Canada's resources and financial alignment.” 4. Why Carney's European pivot matters This is where recent events make Luongo's thesis particularly interesting. Carney has explicitly pursued deeper relationships with Europe and the Indo-Pacific as Canada tries to diversify away from dependence on the US. The Canadian government described this as building a new “rules-based system” with international partners. And Carney has maintained close engagement with Starmer and the UK. From a conventional perspective, that's perfectly understandable: Trump is making US-Canada trade dangerous → Canada diversifies its trading relationships. From Luongo's perspective, however, the interpretation is much more dramatic: Trump is attacking the old financial/geopolitical architecture → the architecture is using Canada as one of its major counterweights to the US. That's the distinction. 5. And there is an important wrinkle I wouldn't say Luongo's thesis is: That's actually too crude and makes his argument easier to dismiss. His argument is more sophisticated: People don't necessarily have to receive instructions from “the City of London.” They can belong to, identify with, depend upon, and operate within a shared institutional/financial ecosystem. Carney's career is an unusually good example of someone who has occupied multiple nodes of that ecosystem: Goldman Sachs → Bank of Canada → Bank of England → Financial Stability Board → UN climate/financial institutions → Canadian PM. And Luongo has explicitly grouped Carney with figures such as Lagarde, Draghi, Kuroda and Gordon Brown as representatives of what he calls the “globalist” side of the financial struggle. Where I think it gets genuinely interesting There's a potentially much bigger question underneath the Canada story: Is Trump trying to bring Canada's enormous resource base into a US-controlled continental economic system, while Carney is trying to preserve Canada's integration with the London/European/global financial system? If you accept Luongo's framework, yes — that's basically the chessboard. And the current US-Canada confrontation makes that interpretation particularly interesting. As of August 2026, Carney has described the dispute with Washington as a trade “war,” after talks broke down over US demands including access to Canadian critical minerals and restrictions on Canada's future trade agreements. That's almost tailor-made for Luongo's resource/geopolitical thesis. But there's a major caveat: the evidence establishes Carney's deep integration into international finance and Canada's strategic importance. It does not, by itself, establish Luongo's stronger claim that the City of London is deliberately “using” Carney to execute a coordinated geopolitical plan. If you want, I can go one level deeper and explain Luongo's theory of exactly what the City/Carney supposedly wants to do with Canada — including the Canadian dollar, bonds, pensions, housing, energy, critical minerals and the proposed “bond scheme.” That's where his Canada thesis becomes much more specific.
