Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

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

Published

10 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

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.

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.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Prime minister can make good on campaign promise by reforming Canada Health Act

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

While running for the job of leading the country, Prime Minister Carney promised to defend the Canada Health Act (CHA) and build a health-care system Canadians can be proud of. Unfortunately, to have any hope of accomplishing the latter promise, he must break the former and reform the CHA.

As long as Ottawa upholds and maintains the CHA in its current form, Canadians will not have a timely, accessible and high-quality universal health-care system they can be proud of.

Consider for a moment the remarkably poor state of health care in Canada today. According to international comparisons of universal health-care systems, Canadians endure some of the lowest access to physicians, medical technologies and hospital beds in the developed world, and wait in queues for health care that routinely rank among the longest in the developed world. This is all happening despite Canadians paying for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal-access health-care systems.

None of this is new. Canada’s poor ranking in the availability of services—despite high spending—reaches back at least two decades. And wait times for health care have nearly tripled since the early 1990s. Back then, in 1993, Canadians could expect to wait 9.3 weeks for medical treatment after GP referral compared to 30 weeks in 2024.

But fortunately, we can find the solutions to our health-care woes in other countries such as Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia, which all provide more timely access to quality universal care. Every one of these countries requires patient cost-sharing for physician and hospital services, and allows private competition in the delivery of universally accessible services with money following patients to hospitals and surgical clinics. And all these countries allow private purchases of health care, as this reduces the burden on the publicly-funded system and creates a valuable pressure valve for it.

And this brings us back to the CHA, which contains the federal government’s requirements for provincial policymaking. To receive their full federal cash transfers for health care from Ottawa (totalling nearly $55 billion in 2025/26) provinces must abide by CHA rules and regulations.

And therein lies the rub—the CHA expressly disallows requiring patients to share the cost of treatment while the CHA’s often vaguely defined terms and conditions have been used by federal governments to discourage a larger role for the private sector in the delivery of health-care services.

Clearly, it’s time for Ottawa’s approach to reflect a more contemporary understanding of how to structure a truly world-class universal health-care system.

Prime Minister Carney can begin by learning from the federal government’s own welfare reforms in the 1990s, which reduced federal transfers and allowed provinces more flexibility with policymaking. The resulting period of provincial policy innovation reduced welfare dependency and government spending on social assistance (i.e. savings for taxpayers). When Ottawa stepped back and allowed the provinces to vary policy to their unique circumstances, Canadians got improved outcomes for fewer dollars.

We need that same approach for health care today, and it begins with the federal government reforming the CHA to expressly allow provinces the ability to explore alternate policy approaches, while maintaining the foundational principles of universality.

Next, the Carney government should either hold cash transfers for health care constant (in nominal terms), reduce them or eliminate them entirely with a concordant reduction in federal taxes. By reducing (or eliminating) the pool of cash tied to the strings of the CHA, provinces would have greater freedom to pursue reform policies they consider to be in the best interests of their residents without federal intervention.

After more than four decades of effectively mandating failing health policy, it’s high time to remove ambiguity and minimize uncertainty—and the potential for politically motivated interpretations—in the CHA. If Prime Minister Carney wants Canadians to finally have a world-class health-care system then can be proud of, he should allow the provinces to choose their own set of universal health-care policies. The first step is to fix, rather than defend, the 40-year-old legislation holding the provinces back.

Continue Reading

Trending

X