Business
‘Controligarchs’ lays bare a nightmare society the globalist elites have in store for humanity

From LifeSiteNews
Journalist Seamus Bruner has published new details on globalist plans to dominate every aspect of our lives, including our food, movement, and transactions
A newly released book gives a fresh, well-documented look into the nightmarish, dystopian society that billionaire globalists are shaping for humanity, in which our every movement and transaction will be tracked, our food will be restricted, and our perception of reality will be heavily manipulated.
Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life is a thoroughly researched book by investigative journalist Seamus Bruner detailing the global game plan of what he refers to as a new class of oligarchs. They are distinguished from ultra-wealthy elites of the past by the unprecedented level of control they can exercise over the masses through technology, not just over one nation, but over the whole world.
Bruner shows how the globalist elites plan to impose a new kind of serfdom by controlling nearly every facet of our lives, with different billionaires specializing in different areas, beginning with what is most personal to us — our bodies.
After giving a bird’s eye view of the globalists’ plans through the lens of the Great Reset, Bruner dives into each of the globalists’ main levers of power over society, which exert control, respectively, over what goes into our bodies; over home energy use and transportation; over local politics and law enforcement; and over information access and perception.
The journalist first shows how Bill Gates, who already exercises massive sway over world health policy through the World Health Organization (WHO) and investments in vaccines, is also heavily investing in a root source of health: the food supply.
Bruner explains in his book that the “takeover of the food” is accomplished by “controlling the intellectual property of food production through trademarks, copyrights, and patents.” This has already been seen in Gates’ funding and control of seed patents, and in his push for patented synthetic fertilizers, discussed by Bruner, which have caused considerable damage to health and small farms around the world.
The next phase of Gates’ food power grab, which has already begun, involves tighter control over farming through land and water grabs, as well as a push to replace meat consumption with that of synthetic and bug protein.
Bruner emphasizes in his book the importance of control over the water supply, writing, according to the New York Post, “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.”
The journalist also examines how Gates and the “tech oligarchs” are pushing meat alternatives, ostensibly for the sake of the climate.
“I was horrified to learn about the lab-grown hamburgers, fermented fungi protein patties, and even insect-based protein shakes they are hoping the public will consume,” wrote Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and senior editor-at-large of Breitbart News, in his foreword to the book.
Gates has invested millions in companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, which have already received more than two dozen patents for their synthetic meat and dairy products, and have more than 100 patents pending, according to Bruner. The alternatives aren’t popular now, but about two-thirds of Americans are reportedly willing to try it.
Breitbart reports that Controligarchs also documents the efforts of Mark Zuckerberg to make the Metaverse, a virtual reality platform linked to the internet and operated by Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook), “the most addictive product in history.”
Meta and three of its subsidiaries have already been sued by the attorneys general of dozens of U.S. states for having “knowingly designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and Facebook to purposefully addict children and teens.”
In comparison, the Metaverse, which has been described by the World Economic Forum’s Cathy Li as a kind of virtual world that will “become an extension of reality itself,” and which is designed to feel real with the help of virtual reality (VR) headsets and sensors, has the potential to become far more addictive than mere social media.
While it is still in the process of being developed, progress is steadily being made toward its widespread use. For example, last Thursday, Meta announced a new strategic partnership with China’s Tencent to make VR headsets cheaper and more accessible, according to Breitbart.
And this summer, Apple announced that it would release its own set of augmented reality glasses, called Apple Vision Pro, next year in the U.S.
The plans for the Metaverse get wilder — and for some, creepier. Meta AI researchers are working on a synthetic “skin” “that’s as easy to replace as a bandage,” called ReSkin, as well as “haptic gloves,” so that Metaverse users can “literally feel and grasp the metaverse.”
If it indeed becomes commonplace, as is planned, the Metaverse has enormous implications for society. Perhaps the most serious is that, as John Horvat II has observed, people will feel free to carry out “every fantasy, even the most macabre,” and perceive that they can do things to others “without consequences.”
“Such a lonely world disconnected from reality and the nature of things can feed the unfettered passions that hate all moral restraint. A space like this can quickly go from Alice in Wonderland to insane asylum,” Horvat noted.
Activities performed “in” the Metaverse would also be monitored by the platform’s administrators, drastically diminishing privacy for all Metaverse users.
The assimilation of everyday activities into the World Wide Web via the Metaverse also raises the question of whether any speech performed while “plugged in” to the Metaverse can be regulated by its administrators. Such unprecedented regulatory power would resemble that of a global government, which is an explicit goal of the World Economic Forum, a major supporter of the Metaverse.
The Metaverse may very well be a consolation prize for the restriction of real-life movement and activity, which is planned for all human beings regardless of their participation in the virtual world, according to Bruner.
Bruner shows that the globalists envision a world in which “your every movement” is “tracked and traced by electric vehicles and a smart power grid,” according to Schweizer, with which your thermostat can be turned off without your consent.
In fact, Bruner unveils a $1.2 billion plan by Jeff Bezos to “spy” on citizens using their “smart” homes, which have already been launched by Amazon.
Worse, all “transactions and affiliations” are to be “linked to digital currencies and IDs,” notes Schweizer, plans that have been in the works for years by global bodies such as the European Union (EU) and WHO, as well as nations worldwide.
Most recently, the Group of 20 (G20) — the 19 most influential countries on earth plus the European Union — has endorsed proposals to explore development of a “digital public infrastructure,” including digital identification systems and potentially a centralized digital currency.
Bruner’s description of the globalist plan for our lives is not speculation by any stretch but is based on thorough documentation, including financial filings, corporate records, and admissions from the very globalists themselves. This makes his book a valuable tool not only for those already acquainted with the Great Reset and its accompanying tyranny but for skeptics.
Bruner has advised, “jealously guard your wallet,” “jealously guard your personal data, especially that of your kids,” and “talk to your legislators and Congressmen and tell them to ban your taxpayer money from funding these initiatives.”
Alberta
Alberta taxpayers should know how much their municipal governments spend

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson
Next week, voters across Alberta will go to the polls to elect their local governments. Of course, while the issues vary depending on the city, town or district, all municipal governments spend taxpayer money.
And according to a recent study, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County were among Alberta’s highest-spending municipalities (on a per-person basis) in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data). Kara Westerlund, president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, said that’s no surprise—arguing that it’s expensive to serve a small number of residents spread over large areas.
That challenge is real. In rural areas, fewer people share the cost of roads, parks and emergency services. But high spending isn’t inevitable. Some rural municipalities managed to spend far less, demonstrating that local choices about what services to provide, and how to deliver them, matter.
Consider the contrast in spending levels among rural counties. In 2023, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County spent $5,413 and $4,619 per person, respectively. Foothills County, by comparison, spent just $2,570 per person. All three counties have relatively low population densities (fewer than seven residents per square kilometre) yet their per-person spending varies widely. (In case you’re wondering, Calgary spent $3,144 and Edmonton spent $3,241.)
Some of that variation reflects differences in the cost of similar services. For example, all three counties provide fire protection but in 2023 this service cost $56.95 per person in Grande Prairie County, $38.51 in Red Deer County and $10.32 in Foothills County. Other spending differences reflect not just how much is spent, but whether a service is offered at all. For instance, in 2023 Grande Prairie County recorded $46,283 in daycare spending, while Red Deer County and Foothills County had none.
Put simply, population density alone simply doesn’t explain why some municipalities spend more than others. Much depends on the choices municipal governments make and how efficiently they deliver services.
Westerlund also dismissed comparisons showing that some counties spend more per person than nearby towns and cities, calling them “apples to oranges.” It’s true that rural municipalities and cities differ—but that doesn’t make comparisons meaningless. After all, whether apples are a good deal depends on the price of other fruit, and a savvy shopper might switch to oranges if they offer better value. In the same way, comparing municipal spending—across all types of communities—helps Albertans judge whether they get good value for their tax dollars.
Every municipality offers a different mix of services and those choices come with different price tags. Consider three nearby municipalities: in 2023, Rockyview County spent $3,419 per person, Calgary spent $3,144 and Airdrie spent $2,187. These differences reflect real trade-offs in the scope, quality and cost of local services. Albertans should decide for themselves which mix of local services best suits their needs—but they can’t do that without clear data on what those services actually cost.
A big municipal tax bill isn’t an inevitable consequence of rural living. How much gets spent in each Alberta municipality depends greatly on the choices made by the mayors, reeves and councillors Albertans will elect next week. And for Albertans to determine whether or not they get good value for their local tax dollars, they must know how much their municipality is spending.
Business
Major Projects Office Another Case Of Liberal Political Theatre

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Ottawa’s Major Projects Office is a fix for a mess the Liberals created—where approval now hinges on politics, not merit.
They are repeating their same old tricks, dressing up political favouritism as progress instead of cutting barriers for everyone
On Sept. 11, the Prime Minister’s Office announced five projects being examined by its Major Projects Office, all with the potential to be fast-tracked for approval and to get financial help. However, no one should get too excited. This is only a bad effort at fixing what government wrecked.
During the Trudeau years, and since, the Liberals have created a regulatory environment so daunting that companies need a trump card to get anything done. That’s why the Major Projects Office (MPO) exists.
“The MPO will work to fast-track nation-building projects by streamlining regulatory assessment and approvals and helping to structure financing, in close partnership with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples and private investors,” explains a government press release.
Canadians must not be fooled. A better solution would be to create a regulatory and tax environment where these projects can meet market demand through private investment. We don’t have that in Canada, which is why money has fled the country and our GDP growth per capita is near zero.
Instead of this less politicized and more even-handed approach, the Liberals have found a way to make their cabinet the only gatekeepers able to usher someone past the impossible process they created. Then, having done so, they can brag about what “they” got done.
The Fraser Institute has called out this system for its potential to incentivize bribes and kickbacks. The Liberals have such a track record of handing out projects and even judicial positions to their friends that such scenarios become easier to believe. Innumerable business groups will be kissing up to the Liberals just to get anything major done.
The government has created the need for more of itself, and it is following up in every way it can. Already, the federal government has set up offices across Canada for people to apply for such projects. Really? Anyone with enough dollars to pursue a major project can fly to Ottawa to make their pitch.
No, this is as much about the show as it is about results—and probably much more. It is all too reminiscent of another big-sounding, mostly ineffective program the Liberal government rolled out in 2017. They announced a $950-million Innovation Superclusters Initiative “designed to help strengthen Canada’s most promising clusters … while positioning Canadian firms for global leadership.”
That program allowed any company in the world to participate, with winners getting matching dollars from taxpayers for their proposals. (But all for the good of Canada, we were told.) More than 50 applications were made for these sweepstakes, which included more than 1,000 businesses and 350 other participants. In Trudeau Liberal fashion, every applicant had to articulate how their proposal would increase female jobs and leadership and encourage diversity in the long term.
The entire process was like one big Dragon’s Den series. The Liberals trotted out a list of contestants full of nice-sounding possibilities, with maximum hype and minimal reality. Late in the process, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Navdeep Bains picked the nine finalists himself (all based in cities with a Liberal MP), from which five would be chosen.
The alleged premise was to leverage local and regional commercial clusters, but that soon proved ridiculous. The “Clean, Low-energy, Effective and Remediated Supercluster” purported to power clean growth in mining in Ontario, Quebec and Vancouver. Not to be outdone, the “Mobility Systems and Technologies for the 21st Century Supercluster” included all three of these locations, plus Atlantic Canada. They were only clustered by their tendency to vote Liberal.
Today, the MPO repeats this virtue-signalling, politicking, drawn-out, tax-dollar-spending drama. The Red Chris Mine expansion in northwest British Columbia is one of the proposals under consideration. It would be done in conjunction with the Indigenous Tahltan Nation and is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 per cent. That’s right up the Liberal alley.
Meanwhile, the project is somehow part of a proposed Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor that would cordon off an area the size of Greece from development. Is this economic growth or economic prohibition? This approach is more like the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 than it is nation-building. And it is more like the World Economic Forum’s “stakeholder capitalism” approach than it is free enterprise.
At least there are two gems among the five proposals. One is to expand capacity at the Port of Montreal, and another is to expand the Canada LNG facility in Kitimat, B.C. Both have a market case and clear economic benefits.
Even here, Canadians must ask themselves, why must the government use a bulldozer to get past the red tape it created? Why not cut the tape for everyone? The Liberals deserve little credit for knocking down a door they barred themselves.
Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet
-
Business2 days ago
Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships
-
Alberta2 days ago
Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline
-
Alberta2 days ago
The Technical Pitfalls and Political Perils of “Decarbonized” Oil
-
National1 day ago
Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Long-Distance Field Goals Have Flipped The Field. Will The NFL Panic?
-
Business2 days ago
“Nation Building,” Liberal Style: We’re Fixing a Sewer, You’re Welcome, Canada
-
Business1 day ago
Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy