Peter Myers Digest: Dusk of the Petrodollar, Dawn of the Petroyuan, by Zoltan Pozsar

(2) Globalists plot to vest permanent power in WHO, via International Health Regulations (IHR)

(3) Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger: the WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global coup d’état

(1) Zoltan Pozsar: Dusk of the Petrodollar, Dawn of the Petroyuan

https://plus2.credit-suisse.com/shorturlpdf.html?v=5h1o-YP34-V&t=-6f9o9gxfcir9ldit6fbbldzzx

War and Commodity Encumbrance

Zoltan Pozsar

A recurring theme in my dispatches this year has been that in a moment when the world is going from unipolar to multipolar, the actions of heads of state are far more important than the actions of central banks. That is because heads of state lead, their actions affect inflation, and central banks merely follow by hiking rates to “clean up”. Central banks will be behind the curve in this game, and if investors read only the speeches of central bankers but not statesmen, they will be even more behind the curve. The multipolar world order is being built not by G7 heads of state but by the “G7 of the East” (the BRICS heads of state), which is a G5 really but because of “BRICSpansion”, I took the liberty to round up.

 

The special relationship between China and Russia has a financial agenda to it, and what President Xi and President Putin say about the future of money – that is, the future they envision – matters for the future of the U.S. dollar and liquidity in the U.S. Treasury market. Their actions are forging something new:

Bretton Woods III is slowly taking shape, and in light of developments to date, my motto for Bretton Woods III – “our commodity, your problem” – remains apt.

President Xi’s visit with Saudi and GCC leaders marks the birth of the petroyuan and a leap in China’s growing encumbrance of OPEC+’s oil and gas reserves: with the China-GCC Summit, China can claim to have built a “special relationship” not only with the “+” sign in OPEC+ (Russia), but with Iran and all of OPEC+…

President Xi’s visit was the very first China-Arab States Summit in history, and echoes FDR’s meeting with King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud on Valentine’s Day 1945 aboard an American cruiser, the USS Quincy. Fixed income investors should care

– not just because the invoicing of oil in renminbi will hurt the dollar’s might, but also because commodity encumbrance means more inflation for the West.

Here are the key parts from President Xi’s speech at the China-GCC Summit (all emphasis with orange underlines are mine): “In the next three to five years, China is ready to work with GCC countries in the following priority areas: first, setting up a new paradigm of all-dimensional energy cooperation, where China will continue to import large quantities of crude oil on a long-term basis from GCC countries, and purchase more LNG. We will strengthen our cooperation in the upstream sector, engineering services, as well as [downstream] storage, transportation, and refinery. The Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas Exchange platform will be fully utilized for RMB settlement in oil and gas trade, […] and we could start currency swap cooperation and advance the m-CBDC Bridge project.

Let’s dissect President Xi’s comments bit by bit, and color them with other pieces of information as we go along. First, what is the “duration” of this theme?

It’s pretty short: in the words of President Xi, “the next three to five years”. In market terms, that means that five-year forward five-year inflation breakevens should be discounting a world in which oil and gas is invoiced not only in dollars but also renminbi, and in which some oil and gas is not available for the West at low prices (and in dollars) because they have been encumbered by the East.

But it does not appear that breakeven expectations reflect anything like that…

My sense is that the market is starting to realize that the world is going from unipolar to multipolar politically, but the market has yet to make the leap that in the emerging multipolar world order, cross-currency bases will be smaller, commodity bases will be greater, and inflation rates in the West will be higher…

Inflation traders should be paranoid, not complacent. As Andy Grove said, “only the paranoid survive”, but when I asked a small group of inflation traders over dinner in London this summer about how the market (they) comes up with five-year forward five-year breakevens, I did not sense any degree of paranoia in their answer: “there is no top-down or bottom-up work that we do to come up with our estimates; we take central banks’ inflation targets as a given and the rest is liquidity”. Inflation breakevens do not seem to price any geopolitical risk.

Second, “paradigm” in “a new paradigm of all-dimensional energy cooperation” is a symbolic word. The meeting between FDR and King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud was a new paradigm too: the U.S.’s security guarantees for the kingdom for access to affordable oil supplies. Over time, the paradigm boiled down to this:

the U.S. imported oil and paid for it with U.S. dollars, which Saudi Arabia spent on Treasuries and arms and recycled the leftovers as deposits in U.S. banks. (In the wake of the OPEC shocks of the 1970s, that recycling of petrodollars led to the Latin American debt crisis in the 1980s.) The old paradigm worked…

…until it didn’t:

the U.S. is now less reliant on oil from the Middle East owing to the shale revolution, while China is the largest importer of oil; security relations are in flux (see here): Saudi holdings of U.S. Treasuries and bank deposits are down as the kingdom went from funding the U.S. government and banks to owning equity in firms; and the Saudi crown prince said recently that the kingdom could reduce its investments in the U.S. (see here). Similar patterns hold in other GCC countries.

The “new paradigm” between China, Saudi Arabia, and GCC countries is fundamentally different from the one struck aboard USS Ouincy. Naturally so, as China is now dealing with a rich Middle East, whereas FDR was dealing with a Middle East that had just started to develop. With wealth, power and priorities shift:

back then, “liquidity and security” were more important for an emerging region; today, “equity and respect” are more importantforwhat has become an eminent region.

That is what China offered: “all-dimensional energy cooperation” means not just taking oil for cash and arms but investing in the region in the “downstream sector” and leveraging the regional know-how for cooperation in the “upstream sectors” -“upstream” could potentially mean the joint exploration of oil in the South China Sea.

Furthermore, Xi’s “all-dimensional energy cooperation” also means working in cooperation on the “localized production of new energy equipment” (see here).

Put differently, “oil for development” (plants and jobs) crowded out “oil for arms” – the Belt and Road Initiative met Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 in a big win-win…

Third, the “newparadigm” will not be funded with U.S. dollars:

President Xi noted that “the Shanghai Petroleum and Natural […] will be fully utilized for RMB settlement in oil and gas trade”. President Xi’s comments that “China will continue to import large quantities of crude oil on a long-term basis from GCC countries, and purchase more LNG” underscores the gravity of the underlined quote: combined, the two basically say that China, already the largest buyer of oil and gas from GCC countries, will buy even more in the future, and wants to pay for all of it in renminbi over the next three to five years.

Again, think of the timing of this statement in a diplomatic sense: President Xi communicated his message on “renminbi invoicing” not during the first day of his visit – when he met only the Saudi leadership – but during the second day of his visit – when he met the leadership of all the GCC countries – to in part signal … GCC oil flowing East + renminbi invoicing = the dawn of the petroyuan.

Good morning!

Given the scope of priority areas in which China plans to work with GCC countries -the sale of clean energy infrastructure, big data and cloud computing centers, 5G and 6G projects, and cooperation in smart manufacturing and space exploration as per Xi’s speech – there will be many avenues through which GCC countries will be able to decumulate the renminbi they earn from selling oil and gas to China.

And if, perish the thought, any GCC country were to accumulate some surplus cash in “non-convertible” renminbi, just as President Xi’s plane was landing in Riyadh, the PBoC revealed that during 2022, it had re-started gold purchases with gusto.

Why do China’s gold purchases matter in the context of renminbi settlement?

Because at the 2018 BRICS Summit, China launched a renminbi-denominated oil futures contract on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange, and since 2016 and 2017, the renminbi has been convertible to gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong Gold Exchanges, respectively. Not a bad deal, this renminbi…

Paraphrasing Forrest Gump, “you can spend it on solar panels, wind turbines, data centers, telecommunications equipment, or space projects to create jobs, or you can just recycle it at some bank or just convert it to good old gold bars. Money is as money does, and convertibility to gold beats convertibility to dollars”.

President Xi’s “three- to five-year horizon” means that by 2025, the GCC may be paid in renminbi for all of the oil and gas that they will be shipping east to China.

Fourth, “plumbing” references in Xi’s speech add further gravity to the above…

When was the last time you heard a head of state talk about swap lines and central bank digital currencies (CBDC)? And not just any CBDC, but a specific one: “the m-CBDC Bridge project”.

The m-CBDC Bridge project, or as the BIS likes to refer to it, Project mBridge. is a masterclass in plumbing: undertaken by the PBoC. the Bank of Thailand, the HKMA, and the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates, the project enables real-time, peer-to-peer, cross-border, and foreign exchange transactions using CBDCs, and does so without involving the U.S. dollar or the network of Western correspondent banks that the U.S. dollar system runs on. Pretty interesting, no?

In a very Uncle Sam-like fashion (see here!. China wants more of the GCC’s oil, wants to pay for it with renminbi, and wants the GCC to accept e-renminbi on the m-CBDC Bridge platform, so don’t hesitate – join the mBridge fast train…

And finally, President Xi’s reference to starting “currency swap cooperation”, reminded me of using swap lines as analogues of the Lend-Lease agreement whereby the U.S. lent dollars to Britain to buy arms to fight Germany during WWII:

now we fight climate change and if you don’t earn renminbi to build NEOM. no problem at all, we can swap your local currency for my local currency whereby I lend you some renminbi and then you can buy the stuff you need, and when you will start selling me oil for renminbi, you can pay off the swap lines. All I care about is that you don’t pay for imports from me in U.S. dollars, because I have enough U.S. dollars already and I don’t want to add to my sanctions risk.

The “m-CBDC Bridge project” offers further leads down the monetary rabbit hole:

I didn’t understand “why” when I first read about Russia requesting oil payments from India in United Arab Emirates dirhams, but now I do: dirhams “appeal” to Russia because the Central Bank of the UAE is a member of m-CBDC Bridge, and so dirhams can be sold for renminbi using central bank digital currencies and thus away from the Western banking system. This does not necessarily have to go through the m-CBDC Bridge project per se, but the existence of it implies that some CBDCs are already interlinked to facilitate interstate payments “off the Western system”. Then, perhaps inspired by Russia’s payment request, on December 6th, Bloomberg ran a story about India and the UAE working on a rupee-dirham payment mechanism to bypass the U.S. dollar in bilateral trade, a mechanism that will include payments for oil and gas purchases from the UAE.

Do take a step back and consider… that since the beginning of this year, 2022, Russia has been selling oil to China for renminbi, and to India for UAE dirhams; India and the UAE are working on settling oil and gas trades in dirhams by 2023; and China is asking the GCC to “fully” utilize Shanghai’s exchanges to settle all oil and gas sales to China in renminbi by 2025. That’s dusk for the petrodollar…

… and dawn for the petroyuan. Now on to the topic of commodity encumbrance.

In money and banking, the word “encumbrance” is typically used in the context of transactions involving collateral: if collateral is pledged to a specific trade, it’s referred to as “encumbered”, which means it can’t be used to do other trades. If encumbrance becomes extreme, collateral gets scarce, which typically shows up as interest rates on scarce pieces of collateral trading deeply below OIS rates…

Under Bretton Woods III, a system in which commodities are collateral, encumbrance means that commodities can get scarce in certain parts of the world – and that scarcity shows up as inflation “printing” far inflation targets…

To see what encumbrance means in the context of the oil and gas markets today, let’s start with the geographic scope of OPEC+, that is, OPEC plus Russia: the original founding members of OPEC were the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Venezuela in 1960, which were later joined by Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Libya (1962), the United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), Nigeria (1971), Ecuador (1973), Gabon (1975), Angola (2007), Equatorial Guinea (2017), and Congo (2018). Russia joined OPEC in 2016 – a union that forged OPEC+. Think of OPEC+ as follows: Russia, Iran, the GCC, Latin American producers, North African producers, West African producers, and Indonesia. I left out Iraq, where ISIS is complicating the overall picture, but the rest of the groupings show how China is starting to dominate OPEC.

First, Russia and China have their famous special relationship, and since the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, China has been paying for Russian oil in renminbi at a steep discount. As President Putin remarked. “China drives a hard bargain”.

Second, Iran and China have also had a special relationship since March 27, 2021 – the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership – a 25-year “deal” under which China committed to invest $400 billion into Iran’s economy in exchange for a steady supply of Iranian oil at a steep discount. The deal included $280 billion toward developing downstream petrochemical sectors (refining and plastics) and $120 billion toward Iran’s transportation and manufacturing infrastructure. Specifically, under the agreement, “China will be able to buy any and all Iranian oil, gas, and petrochemical products at a minimum guaranteed discount of 12 percent to the six-month rolling mean price of comparable benchmark products, plus another 6 to 8 percent on top for risk-adiusted compensation” (see here). This means that Iran is selling its oil to China at about the same price as Russia, or maybe in reverse, as the Iran deal predates the post-Ukraine prices for Russia!

Third, Venezuela has been accepting payments for oil in renminbi since 2019 (see here) and has also been selling oil to China at steep discounts (see here).

Fourth, Xi’s GCC “pitch” was similar to the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran – investments in downstream petrochemical projects, manufacturing, and infrastructure – plus some higher value-added projects for Saudi Arabia to aid Riyadh’s Silicon Valley aspirations. Because the GCC aren’t sanctioned, China didn’t ask for any steep discounts, but it did ask for renminbi settlement.

Let’s stop here for a moment. Russia, Iran, and Venezuela account for about 40 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, and each of them are currently selling oil to China for renminbi at a steep discount. The GCC countries account for 40 percent of proven oil reserves as well – Saudi Arabia has a half of that, and the other GCC countries the other half – and are being courted by China to accept renminbi for their oil in exchange for transformative investments – the “newparadigm” we discussed above. To underscore, the U.S. has sanctioned half of OPEC with 40 percent of the world’s oil reserves and lost them to China, while China is courting the other half of OPEC with an offer that’s hard to refuse…

The remaining 20 percent of proven oil reserves are in North and West Africa and Indonesia. Geopolitically, North Africa is dominated by Russia at present (see here). West Africa by China, and Indonesia has its own agenda (see below).

Commodity encumbrance here means that over the next “three to five years”, China will not only pay for more oil in renminbi (crowding out the U.S. dollar), but new investments in downstream petrochemical industries in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC more broadly mean that in the future, much more value-added will be captured locally at the expense of industries in the West. Think of this as a “farm-to-table” model: I used to sell my chicken and vegetables to you, and you sold soup for a markup in your five-star restaurant, but from now on, I’ll make the soup myself and you’ll get to import it in a can – my oil, my jobs, your spend, “our commodity, vour problem. “Our commodity, our emancipation”.

Commodity encumbrance has had its first major casualty in Europe already: BASF’s decision to permanently downsize its operations at its main plant in Ludwigshafen and instead shift its chemical operations to China was motivated by the fact that China is securing energy at discounts, not markups like Europe.

Collateral encumbrance means encumbrance from the perspective of someone pledging collateral to a dealer. Dealers in turn rehypothecate pledged collateral.

Commodity rehypothecation will work the same way: heavily discounted oil and locally produced chemicals invoiced in renminbi mean encumbrance by the East, and the marginal re-export of oil and chemicals also for renminbi to the West means commodity rehypothecation for a profit, i.e., an “East-to-West” spread…

We are starting to see examples of commodity rehypothecation already:

China became a big exporter of Russian LNG to Europe, and India a big exporter of Russian oil and refined products such as diesel to Europe (see here and here).

We should expect more “rehypothecation” in the future across more products and invoiced not just in euros and dollars, but also renminbi, dirhams, and rupees.

But commodity encumbrance has a darker, “institutional” aspect to it too…

What I described above is a de facto state of affairs, in which Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have effectively pledged their resources to the BRICS and BeltandRoad “cause”, and China is courting the GCC to do the same under a “new paradigm”.

But there is also a de jure version of the commodity encumbrance theme, and here is where a recent speech by President Putin comes in. On June 22, 2022, at the BRICS Business Forum – a WEF-like meeting of the “G7 of the East” – President Putin noted that “the creation of an international reserve currency based on a basket of currencies of our countries is being worked on” (see here).

This “reserve currency project” took off after China failed to reform the SDR, and its antecedents were chronicled in a recent book by Zoe Liu and Mihaela Papa: Can the BRICS De-Dollarize the Global Financial System (see here). The book was funded by the Rising Power Alliances Project at the Fletcher School of Tufts University, which in turn was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

It would seem to me that if the DoD has a keen interest in the topic of de-dollarization, market participants should have one as well, and should also add commodity encumbrance to the list. Now back to Putin’s “BRICS coin” idea…

When a G7 rates strategist or trader starts looking at the “G7 of the East”, he or she will realize that institutions and people are different, but they do exist.

Regarding the development of an “international reserve currency” a la the SDR, Sergei Glazyev has been in charge. Since 2019, Glazyev has been serving as minister in charge of integration and macroeconomics of the EEC, that is, the Eurasian Economic Commission. He strikes me as someone similar to Liu He. who President Xi introduced to a former U.S. national security advisor saying: “This is Liu Fie. Fie is very important to me”. Given his recent progress report on “BRICS coin”, Sergei Glazyev seems to be very important to President Putin.

Regarding “institutionalized commodity encumbrance”, the comments I could find about the “BRICS coin” project from Glazyev revolve around the methodology to determine the weight of each participating currency in the “coin”. Specifically:

“should [a nation] reserve a portion of [its] natural resources for the backing of the new economic system, [its] respective weight in the currency basket of the new monetary unit would increase accordingly, providing that nation with larger currency reserves and credit capacity. In addition, bilateral swap lines with trading partner countries would provide them with adequate financing for co-investments and trade financing” (see here). Hm. Swap lines again to facilitate trade and investments, and a de jure vision for commodity encumbrance in exchange for boosting a country’s “credit line” in an alternative economic system.

It seems to me that “new paradigms” come in pairs…

Attention needs to be paid to the goings-on of the global East and South, especially given that this year Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran have all started their application to the BRICS (see here). Furthermore, following this year’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Samarkand, the SCO

– “the NATO of the East” – granted dialogue partner status to “half the GCC”

–

– Saudi Arabia and Qatar – and started procedures to admit Iran as a member…

–

In Riyadh, President Xi referred to “a garden of civilizations” in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (see here). Unless they involve Adam, Eve, and a snake, gardens typically refer to a happy and peaceful place. Now consider that if Russia and Iran get along, China and Iran get along, Russia and Saudi Arabia get along, and China and Saudi Arabia get along, then the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran engaging in what the FT called “friendly talks” last week (see here) means more momentum for Belt and Road, BRICS+, and “BRICS coin”.

Indeed, for the Belt and Road Initiative to work, the region has to be a peaceful “garden of civilizations”, and for “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to work, a Great Power needs to befriend the enemy of a rival Great Power. But that strategy is increasingly hard to implement in the Middle Eastern “region” of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): the great powers of the Eurasian landmass – China and Russia – are bound by a “special relationship”, and each of them have good a relationship with each of the great powers of the Middle East, and all of them have much to gain from building a new economic and monetary system.

The China-GCC Summit is one thing, and China’s strategic partnership with Iran is another, but both Saudi Arabia and Iran applying to pillar institutions of the multipolar world order – BRICS+ and the SCO – at the same exact time, plus the idea of “BRICS coin” as a commodity-weighted neutral reserve asset that encourages members to pledge their commodities to the BRICS “cause”, should have G7 bond investors concerned, because these trends may keep inflation from slowing and interest rates from falling for the rest of this decade.

Finally, the de facto and de jure commodity encumbrance themes described above have an even graver inflationary undertone if you consider the following:

over the past decade, all growth in global oil production came from U.S. shale and other non-conventional sources such as Canadian tar sands. We know from official comments following President Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia that the kingdom is currently “pumping” at capacity and will be able to boost output by only one million barrels per day by 2025 and then “no more”. In light of that, consider that production from shale fields has peaked and recall some recent comments from the largest shale operator in the U.S. that more drilling would harm the shale industry (see here). It appears to me that unless the U.S. nationalizes shale oil fields and starts to drill for oil itself to boost production, over the next three to five years, we’re looking at an inelastic supply of oil and gas…

.. .and of that inelastic supply:

(1) China will get a bigger share at a discount, invoiced in renminbi.

(2)

(3) China will export more downstream products at a wider margin, and…

(4)

(5) China will lure more firms like BASF with discounted energy bills.

(6)

(7) Iran, with Chinese capital, will do more downstream exports too, and…

(8)

(9) GCC countries, with Chinese capital, ditto, most likely for renminbi.

(10)

The “new paradigm”, as I see it, comes with a theme of “emancipation”: both sanctioned and non-sanctioned members of OPEC, with Chinese capital, are going to adopt the “farm-to-table” model in which they will not just sell oil but will also refine more of it and process more of it into high value-added petrochemical products. Given supply constraints over “the next three to five years”. this will likely be at the expense of refiners and petrochemical firms in the West, and also growth in the West. All this means much less domestic production and more inflation as steadily price-inflating alternatives are imported from the East.

And this is not just about oil and gas…

Earlier this year, President Widodo of Indonesia (an OPEC member since 1962) called for an OPEC-style cartel for battery metals for EVs. Resource nationalism is in the air, but markets don’t seem to price it as a potential driver of inflation.

Considerthat shortly after President Widodo floated his ideaon October 30, 2022, on November 15, 2022, the G7 gave lndonesia $20 billion to move away from coal (see here). Then, on December 14, 2022, the G7 gave Vietnam $15 billion too (see here) to do the same. Great Powers are spending a lot to keep commodities and friend-shoring locations in their orbit at affordable prices. One would suspect these “outlays” are a part of the G7’s $600 billion earmarked to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (see here). Here is the point: major amounts of money are being mobilized to cut off big, fat tail risks to inflation, and to re-emphasize…

…five-year forward five-year breakeven inflation expectations do not price geopolitical risk. I also believe that most inflation traders may not appreciate that the future path of inflation in the West is being “bought” in $15 to $20 billion “clips” one commodity and one region at a time – commodity encumbrance is a real risk.

Commodity encumbrance cuts in the other direction too…

Consider that on November 3, 2022, Canada ordered three Chinese firms to exit lithium mining (see here). In simple terms, commodity encumbrance means…

…a total war for the control of commodities.

President Xi’s “next three to five years” of implementing the “new paradigm” and the risks of resource nationalism and “BRICS coin” means this for G7 rates:

when you look at the yield curve and think about the five-year section and then the forward five-year section, by the time the forward five-year section starts, President Xi may have accomplished his “next three- to five-year” goal of paying for China’s oil and gas imports exclusively in renminbi and may have advanced commodity encumbrance by developing downstream petrochemical industries in the Middle East “region” of Belt and Road and also the rollout of “BRICS coin”.

I don’t think five-year forward five-year rates are pricing the future correctly: breakevens appear to be blind to geopolitical risks and the likelihood of the above.

If the above scenario won’t come to pass, it will be due to a big, global fight…

But a fight like that takes time to conclude, and in its wake, forward five-years should still be different. Or maybe not, if yield curve control funds reconstruction, but under that scenario, bond investors will be subject to financial repression…

Five-year forward five-year breakeven inflation expectations now make little sense. For two generations of investors, geopolitics did not matter. This time is different: it’s time to get real and it’s time to start pricing the secular end of “lowflation”…

Recognize two things: first, that inflation has been driven by non-linear shocks (a pandemic; stimulus; supply chain issues involving laptops, chips, and cars; post-pandemic labor shortages; and then the war in Ukraine), and second, that inflation forecasts treat geopolitics in the reaiview mirror. Don’t be too DSGE…

…think about inflation with geopolitics, resource nationalism, and “BRICS coin” in mind as the next set of non-linear shocks that will keep inflation above target, forcing central banks to hike interest rates above 5% and keep them high as they…

…”clean up” the inflation mess caused by Great Power conflict.

This year was just the beginning. Next year sets the stage for BRICS and the BRI: in April. China will host the fourth Belt and Road Forum (the WEF of the East). Following forums in 2017 and 2019, but not 2021 due to Covid, the coming forum will be hosted by a China that, while in lockdown, forged a bond with all of OPEC+.

(2) Globalists plot to vest permanent power in WHO, via International Health Regulations (IHR)

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/12/26/bill-gates-global-takeover-is-official.aspx

https://www.1news.info/health-news/bill-gates-global-takeover-is-official-1315334

Bill Gates Global Takeover Is Official

Published: December 26, 2022 in Health News by 1news.info.

The WHO is actually a specialized agency within the United Nations. It was initially established in 1948 to “further international cooperation for improved public health conditions,” but we can now see that the long-term goal of the WHO is to serve as a foundation or hub for a one world government under the auspice of coordinating and ensuring global biosecurity.

This becomes self-evident when you review the proposed amendments1 to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) and the new pandemic treaty, which Nass and Corbett review in the featured video.

I also provided details about the treaty in “What You Need to Know About the WHO Pandemic Treaty.” Below, I will primarily focus on the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

Health Regulation Amendments Will Legalize Tyranny

In a December 16, 2022, Substack article,2 James Roguski also reviewed how a temporary crisis (the COVID-19 pandemic) — which, by the way, is long since over — is being used by the WHO to seize permanent power.

The WHO’s ‘recommendations’ are legally binding by all member states, and supersede all national and state laws, including the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s a quick overview of some of the most dangerous and egregious IHR amendments they intend to implement, and what it will mean for you and I. For additional details, see the three references listed here:3,4,5

Eliminating the concepts of respect for human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms — The first principle in Article 3 of the original IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”

The proposed amendment to this Article will strike “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” Now, health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence” only.

What does that mean? Think “You must wear a mask/social distance/isolate/get jabbed to protect others,” even if you’re not sick, or for whatever reason don’t want to do any of those things.

Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You’ll have no right to make personal health decisions. Even if you suspect you might die from the intervention, you have to comply because it’s all about what’s “best” for the collective.

Individuals won’t matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed.

Another amendment is that public health measures will no longer be aimed at achieving “the appropriate level of health protection.” Instead, the new objective will be to attain the “highest achievable level of health protection” without any consideration of proportionality. It’s easy to see how this amendment will be used as justification for the removal of individual rights and freedoms.

Dictatorial powers will be given to the director-general of the WHO — The director-general will have sole power to declare the beginning and end of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEI), and the sole power to dictate responses (including travel restrictions, mask mandates, lockdowns, business closures and vaccine requirements), and the allocation of resources to that PHEI, including funding and what drugs are to be manufactured and used.

These dictates will override and overrule any and all national laws within member states, including the U.S. Constitution.

The obligations under the amended IHR are legally binding, and any member nation that refuses the director-general’s recommendations can be punished through a variety of mechanisms, including economic sanctions and embargoes. Note that the term “recommendation” is defined as “legally binding,” which means they’re actually dictates, not suggestions.

Dictatorial powers will be given to unelected regional directors of the WHO — Similarly, appointed (not elected) regional directors will have the power to determine what constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern (PHERC), and their decisions will also overrule all other laws and Constitutional rights.

Eliminating privacy rights — One of the amendments (page 25) authorizes the disclosure of private and personal data, including genomic data, “where essential for the purposes of assessing and managing a public health risk,” i.e., contact tracing and related efforts.

Expanding censorship — The WHO will “strengthen capacities to … counter misinformation and disinformation” at the global level. In other words, censorship of information will be expanded. The WHO will dictate what “truth” is, and since its decisions are legally binding, countries must enforce compliance.

Mandating vaccine passports and digital IDs globally — The IHR amendments will also give the WHO the power to mandate the use of “health certificates,”6 i.e., vaccine passports. The vaccine passport, in turn, will operate as your digital identification, which will be tied to every aspect of your life, including your bank accounts and social credit score.

In short, it will usher in a surveillance and forced compliance system. The G20 also recently declared that digital vaccine passports standardized by the WHO will be part of international pandemic prevention and response moving forward.

The Trail of Corruption

Ever since its founding in 1948, the WHO has been infiltrated by industry. From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, industry has historically dictated the WHO’s global agenda and continues to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public health.7

In April 2020, then-President Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to the WHO,8 but then directed the U.S. funding for WHO to GAVI, which is a Gates controlled charity that likely just sent the funds to WHO. President Joe Biden restored U.S. funding once he took office.9

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation even before Trump pulled funding was still the WHO’s No.1 funder, as Gates contributes via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), UNICEF and Rotary International.

Gates contributes such a large portion — currently about $1 billion of the WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget10 — that Politico in 2017 wrote a highly-critical article11 about his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:

“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,”12 “The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.

A ‘One World’ Health Plan

In October 2022, the WHO announced a new initiative called One Health Joint Plan of Action. The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which is made up of:

Beyond the amendments to the IHR, this initiative will also expand the WHO’s powers. The One Health Joint Plan of Action combines multiple globalist organizations and synchronizes their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power to create a centralized global superpower.

Decentralized health care and pandemic planning make sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being implemented.

While the Pandemic Treaty and the IHR amendments expand and centralize power over human health with the WHO, the One Health Joint Plan expands the WHO’s power to also address “critical health threats” to animals, plants and the environment.

When you add that together with the planned elimination of human rights, you can see how the One Health Joint Plan can be used to enforce climate lockdowns, for example, or travel restrictions to protect wildlife or the environment. To learn more about this plan, see my previous article, “WHO Assembles Superpowers With ‘One Health Plan.'”

Jeremy Farrar Selected To Be WHO’s Chief Scientist

December 13, 2022, the WHO announced that Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust, has been chosen as its new chief scientist.13 The announcement came mere days after the publication of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s deposition transcript,14 which showed he and Farrar colluded to suppress discussion about SARS-CoV-2 origin. …

Agenda 21 is based on the ideology of “communitarianism,” which argues that “an individual’s rights should be balanced against rights of the community.” Community, however, in the mind of the globalists, is made up of NGOs, corporations and government, which are to dictate what happens around the world. The people are not really part of the equation.

So, the communitarianist philosophy of Agenda 21 and the IHR amendment that removes human rights and freedoms come together like two pieces of a puzzle. The WHO’s biosecurity powers can then be used to pave the way for the more freedom-robbing aspects of Agenda 21.

(3) Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger: the WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global coup d’état

https://www.kla.tv/AstridStuckelberger/24562

Astrid stuckel Berger

Friday, 23. December 2022

18. AZK – Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger, “The WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global coup d’état against our freedoms”

 

As a longtime WHO collaborator Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger has witnessed first-hand how the top health authority, the world works. The grievances in the WHO became internationally well-known Whistleblower. In her talk, she describes how she taught at the WHO, that, in the event of a pandemic, the human rights respected, no panic, stoked, and in any case a Lockdown should be imposed. However, as in the case of Corona the exact opposite occurred, have you understood, that there is a dictatorship was in preparation. You will hear your exciting revelations. [read more]

 

Introduction by Ivo Sasek

 

And I say, the last speaker, she is a charming and highly competent Whistleblower. And I’ll tell you the WHO and the United Nations have to fear every reason to be this Lady now, not because she is dressed as a Tiger, but because they will Express themselves fearlessly to the topic you will talk about – and listen well to the title, there is already so much in it: “The WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global coup d’état against our freedom”. We welcome with great thanks and admiration for this brave woman, woman doctor, Astrid stuckel Berger. Thank you that you are there, we see a brief summary of your resume. Please be nice.

 

Dr. Astrid Stuckel Berger

 

Private lecturer and a PH-service [explanation: a doctoral degree in English-speaking countries] Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger has developed over the years into an internationally recognized expert on global public health and health policy issues. She has more than 25 years of experience as a researcher and trainer in the field of public health at the medical faculty of the University of Geneva and as a Professor at universities in Switzerland and abroad. In addition to WHO she is co-founder and current President of the Geneva International Network on Ageing (GINA), as well as former Chairman of various NGO committees at the United Nations, where she represents since 2002, an academic, an American NGO. Within the United Nations, she worked three years, and in particular with the WHO, to schools, to the Minister of health and epidemiological centers of the regional offices in the implementation of the new international health regulations, and in dealing with emergencies of international importance, such as pandemics. She was appointed rate as an independent expert in the ethics Committee of the WHO on the ethical compliance of international research proposals. Over the years she also worked as a consultant for the WHO in several areas, such as: Mental health, healthy aging and the social determinants of health [explanation: the Economic and social conditions that influence the health status] active. On the European level, it is in addition to the implementation of research projects as an EU expert for health and Innovation for seniors, active, and in particular of the ethical and legal aspects. She was awarded by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for their achievements during the International year of older persons 1999. She is the author of a dozen books and more than 180 scientific papers and Reports for the UN, the EU or of the governments, of which 40 reports and health policy papers for the United Nations and the WHO.

 

Lecture by Dr. Astrid stuckel Berger: “The WHO, the UN and its Plan for a global coup d’état against our freedoms”:

 

I greet you warmly in the world.

 

I want to thank Ivo Sasek, and his Team to bring all these people from all these countries here.

 

It’s like quantum media the world has the feeling to be here, and we have the feeling of being in the world, so the technology should be used in a good way.

 

I would like to tell you first, we are really in a historical, biblical, apocalyptic time. What I’m about to present to you, is dramatic, but it is also necessary.

 

It is a Great is not Reset, but a great awakening.

 

The human consciousness is in need of this. This has not always been here, this is new. This global System enables us to see how tyranny is to grow global. I would like to take on Mr Pfaff reference, because in American history (specification of the Live-Translation: history of the UN) has impressed me something: the General Roméo A. Dallaire was witness to the genocide in Rwanda. There was nothing he could do, he wanted to stop it. He has called on the UN Secretary-General. The genocide has taken place before his eyes, even though he was actually there for peace and security. I may personally meet and we have a Panel, a discussion platform, a round of established peace between the generations. He (Dallaire) told me something that has stayed with me always, he said: “I know that there is a God, because I shook in Rwanda, the devil’s Hand. I saw him, smelled him and I have touched him. I know that the devil exists and therefore I know that there is a God.“

 

So this is an example of a model of someone in a war situation is but I would like to make the Good, and so it is today. André Malraux, a French writer has said, we are in a spiritual century or not. And I would say the bottom line is, we have already won. And we must remain in this high vibration and stop. I’ll show you a Plan, but stay in the high vibration.

 

We now live under a tyranny of the WHO and the UN.

 

I have to say one thing at the very beginning.

 

The States are not States. The States are already registered as a company, been to several places around the world, including European States.

 

Switzerland has been listed as a Confederation, for example, in 1993 in Brussels and also in 2014….so you begin to understand. I’m going to give you a General overview of this crisis, the COVID-19 is called, where we are, 3 years later, still under the state of Emergency, so on a national and on an international level. And this is completely unjustified. You’ll still see people with a mask, with disinfectant gel for hands, with Plastic dividers in the Restaurants. And it is all about the regulations, health regulations, the WHO, the have been installed, for example, in the Swiss epidemics act, but also in all other health care legislation in the world. Click here to see a graphic that is quite extensive, and you will see that step by step, year after year, always something to be done. The American and Israeli expert Aaron Antonovsky is specialized to analyze coherence [explanation: relationships], as a key element for the mental health. And I’m trying to draw this sense of consistency, a little bit for you.

 

In the first Phase, the fear was created and propagated, in which a Virus is inflated and the people were afraid that you will die from it. The media have increased the Drama, really, and it has been shown the photos, for example, it has been shown in the hospitals, coffins, to make people scared.

 

Professor Ioannidis, one of the Top epidemiologists in the world, from Stanford University, has shown that there were 2020, more Dead than in other years and published for the first time with the WHO and also at other Places.

 

Further evidence [explanation: a Systematic evidence of the benefit of a diagnosis, or therapy] is that the COVID Virus mutates rapidly, so that it actually disappears in a couple of months back.

 

I have to compare in 2002, an article written by SARS-CoV 1 and SARS-CoV 2 together. And this Coronavirus mutates so quickly that it has only reached 24 countries, and after 8 months it was gone again. There were no pandemic, only about 700 and some Dead. It was impossible for a vaccine because the Virus mutates again and again.

 

You really have stoked fear that the people are ready to do anything just so that this Virus drops you in the head.

 

And by the way, the Virus was isolated also never. According to the postulates of Koch, and also to the what, the WHO prescribes to international regulations, would have to be isolated the Virus.

 

There are four criteria:

 

To isolate, characterize, very important, the causality [explanation: the relationship between cause and effect] to investigate.

 

If it has found the Virus, it is injected in animals and observed whether it developed the same symptoms again and again. The man has not made. And what was also criticized ultimately, it was never done a study on the Transmission.

 

So you could say that The PCR Test is a complete lie. Kary B. Mullis, the inventor of the PCR Tests, has said that you can’t use for diagnosis. He is a Nobel laureate. The CDC, the health authority in the United States, has said (in 2020) also: the use of the PCR test is very limited. You can investigate so that no bacteria or viruses. This is not suitable for the diagnosis. To search only for something Specific; therefore, only for the Research. And the WHO has said.

 

So we have the tyranny of the year 2020.

 

And in 2021, we have a huge global study with the open sky (field experiment). This is not a clinical study. This is impossible. This is not ethical. In the ethics, you must do this on a very limited number of spaces, specifically, for example, with 80 people.

 

I myself was in the ethics Committee of the WHO and I can tell you, there is absolutely nothing Ethical about this approach, with COVID, and it would not be safe to come through this way. The first is a pharmaceutical company can’t make yourself study when it is itself involved in this. And, above all, when it was sold after the funds. And in ethics, it is also so that you have to pay, if there are side effects. This company does not. And you will also be liable for the damage caused. And, as you can see it in Red, you really have a conscious, enlightened wants to have the decision-making, as it has wife Beate workers said this Morning. And you must have signed it, because it is afterwards a legal document. And furthermore, there is no privacy. Because everyone says Yes, if he is vaccinated or not.

 

And you can’t be traveling without vaccinated to, in this case, the private data. This is unacceptable and against international law.

 

In the name of that you have to take care of all, that was now in the first Phase, the fear-inciting and after the injection of an experimental substance to persons weak as children. Actually, you don’t have to be inoculated older people, because the antibody. I’ve done research about it, and as you can see, it is even bad for you.

 

So the second Phase is then the total control. You can see already, that you exercise with this vaccination already control. And between 2022 and 2024 happen now several things at the same time, coming from the WHO and the UN

 

> the digitization of the world

 

> the QR-Code anywhere and

 

> this continuous Narrative [explanation: the repetitive narrative] of the Virus. …

 

And now we go on to this global Plan of how it will be implemented, how the process is. There are two key documents. The international health regulations, which are available in multiple languages, where you describe how to manage a pandemic at international and national level. Always in the name of security. The Second is the Constitution of the WHO. The was made in 1948, finished, and seven times changed. You have to look closely. And the article 19 to 22 are the door, the Opening for the complete dictatorship. The Global, in cooperation with the UN. Because the article 57 of the UN Charter on this together. And they are currently working on a document that I’m about to show you. You want to call it the “Treaty” (Treaty/agreement) or Convention for the pandemics.

 

The Name is CA+. I think this means “Convention agreement” [explanation/Translation: agreement to the Convention]. This is the third Version that I’m about to show you. So let’s look at the one by the other and look after also works like the System.

 

First, the international health regulations in 1969, it had made since the first Version and in order to regulate the travel of people between countries. And in 2002, after SarsCov1 it has created a much more comprehensive second Version, which came into force in 2005 and is used for today. And as I have taught, we have made actually, first, that each state is its own answer. And that also respects the human rights, the protection of the passengers, for example and that makes a Lockdown that relates to the company or the airlines. It was actually more, to protect exactly this. That’s why I immediately understood that there is a dictatorship in preparation.

 

One thing you need to know, because that will be important for the future: That the Constitution of the WHO may decide to in articles 19 – 22, especially 21, a set of rules with two-thirds of the votes of all present in the WHO, which is immediately valid. As well as this international health regulations, if a special international Situation, and this act is urgent. And that’s why you always keep this state of emergency. …

 

This global vaccination schedule is in the connection, or even driven by GAVI, the vaccine Alliance of Bill Gates. He has, of course, yet another organization, you will be led by Bill Gates, it is: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who is also a Bill Gates, the name was previously: Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for population reduction. The father of Bill Gates was of the Fabian society, which is responsible for the depopulation. You can research it. And the mother was in the area of reproductive and sexual health. You see a business plan, and now they have speeded up the Whole thing with vaccines, therapies and diagnostics. The company’s plan, the state is prank against humanity.

 

From a political point of view, the WHO Constitution is the second most important document that you should know. In this document …

 

What can we do? So we need to know that nowhere in the texts of the UN or the WHO, is, that one can escape. We can say, like Trump simply: “We will not have to pay more.” Because our state will pay heads with our tax money, without asking us, must we not say to our States: “We want you to represent us and our tax used the funds to Finance this. Why do you have such company in our name created?“

 

The second way is from the System to withdraw. Click here to see the United Nations System.

It is not easy to make an international court of justice, because the two international courts for civil law and criminal law and the Nuremberg Tribunal, the organs they are associated with these UN-at the very top. And with five countries (the UN security Council) to decide the still on everything. The WHO is an Agency, but it is everywhere, the portal of Entry. You can find this illustration in German, in French, English. If you enter as the “United Nations System PDF” then you can find it all.

https://www.un.org/depts/german/orgastruktur/vn-organigramm_oktober2011.pdf

https://www.un.org/depts/german/orgastruktur/dpi2470rev5-german.pdf

So, we need to go back, in a different Dimension. We need to understand that this is very long so. The UN was created by the masons from France, Ireland and Scotland, but also with the United States and other forces We know that the world Bank and the international monetary Fund, are also part of this global network. And the BIS (Bank for International settlements) in Basel is the Bank of all banks.

We know that you don’t censor that you want to our Well-being, that the lies are always there. And as Andreas Thiel has already said, we need to come back to the base, to the life. In order to live, the means are quite simple, we choose. All of this to Happen to move us out of this System, from the Matrix to withdraw. What has been said Ivo, is also a bit of a departure from the Vatican System, from that of Roman law.

von Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger

Quellen/Links:

Astrid Stuckelberger

www.astridstuckelberger.com

e point: major amounts of money are being mobilized to cut off big, fat tail risks to inflation, and to re-emphasize…