## Thursday, June 18, 2015 ... /////

### Should one believe Bilderberg conspiracy theories?

The Pope released his Laudato si' today (English).

It's a highly politically sounding combination of his personal version of the IPCC report, Greenpeace and Club of Rome booklets, quotes of the previous Popes, Saint Francis of Assisi, as well as the Bible, and gems such as "...unites us in fond affection with brother sun, sister moon, brother river and mother earth". Jorge Mario Bergoglio's family must be a motley gang!

A Brazilian AGW activist group created this trailer for the upcoming Hollywood blockbuster "Pope Francis: The Encyclical". Jesus Christ was hired as Francis' boxing coach while Greece's bankrupt finance minister Yanis Varoufakis ironically defends the evil fossil fuel lobby.

He repeats all the usual nonsensical clichés about the lethal nature of carbon emissions, collapse of diversity, and so on, and so on. He denounces the carbon indulgences because they could be a speculators' ploy that will also encourage excessive consumption in some countries. He probably wants to ban carbon altogether. At the very end of the encyclical, he published two amendments for the Bible – his own prayers, one for the Earth and one for the unity of creation. Not bad.

If he wrote it himself, it's impressive that such an old man is still able to use his pen and remain the master of his bladder, too. But the content is wrong, deluded, unoriginal, and boring, and I don't believe that the election or appointment by a gang of senile church apparatchiks makes one an expert in either of the topics, anyway, so I decide not to dedicate more attention to Bergoglio's long rant. Mrs Hayhoe will no longer be alone. One of the good things about the encyclical is that many more people will be able to see that the climate alarmism is a form of religion.

To change everything, we need everyone. Maybe. But if we destroy creation, creation will no longer be able to destroy us because it will have been already destroyed! ;-) Fix your logic, Mr Bergoglio.

One week ago, the four-day 2015 Bilderberg meeting began in Telfs-Buchen, Austria. The original location was the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands; The Bilderberg Group was first formed in 1954. The annual meetings have been private which is why they became an inspiration for conspiracy theories – produced by extreme enough left-wingers as well as right-wingers (and those nutty enough not to be classifiable in this way).

In the 2015 list, I find one name of a person whom I know in person. A few years ago, I have spoken to him – it is he, not she – for an hour during a one-week-long, super-duper-secret meeting in the French Riviera (paid by the Bilderberger himself) that could probably be considered analogous to the Bilderberg meetings and inspire lots of conspiracy theories by itself. ;-)

Well, the Bilderberg conspiracy theories – this group is planning to conquer the world and establish a global socialism of a sort – are believed by luminaries such as Alex Jones, Lyndon LaRouche, the John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly, Jim Tucker, Jesse Ventura, and others. Be sure that there are many things that many of these people and societies think and say that I would endorse. But when it comes to these conspiracy theories, I must ask: WTF?

My experience with the "mini-Bilderberg meeting" is probably the main piece of empirical evidence that leaves me puzzled about the conspiracy theorists' big eyes. It was an extremely interesting meeting. The people over there were very smart and interesting. And some of them, like the host, were highly achieved, financially and otherwise.

But like every meeting, it was a meeting of people who ultimately disagree about many things, too. They are learning from each other. And their power isn't infinite. I think it's obvious that the same observations that applied to our "mini-Bilderberg" hold for the full-scale Bilderberg, too.

You may easily find out the name of my totally secret Bilderberg contact ;-) if you Google search for words such as "Globalist billionaire take on the Bilderberg Group" without the quotes. If you know or learn something about him, you will have to agree that it's pretty much insane to accuse this particular man of plans to turn the world into a giant socialist superstate. He's really libertarian! Many people on the Bilderberg list have significantly different opinions about various issues so I guess that they politely disagree about them. There's no way how they could be pushing the world in a clear and well-defined direction, especially if it were a direction that heavily reduces the human freedom.

Two years ago or so, my ingenious Bilderberg contact said things like this:

One of the remarkable things about the Bilderberg Group, he [my Bilderberger] says, is how it unites people from opposite ends of the political spectrum in attacking it. When the group met in a hotel near Washington, DC, in 2012 there were protesters outside from both the left-wing Occupy movement and the right-wing Tea Party, ‘arrayed,’ [my Bilderberger] remembers, ‘with digital cameras and mock guillotines for executing the traitors to be found within.

‘Actually, the people on the inside find the protesters to be quite reassuring because this suggests something important is going on. But I think the striking thing is that there is no conspiracy; there is no plan, there is no strategy. We live in a world full of conspiracy theories but with very few old-fashioned conspiracies. If you think what political leaders have plans and are thinking about the future, you get the sense it may be true of Putin and the Chinese leadership, but that’s about it. The shocking thing is there is no plan at all.’
Well, exactly. Even if a meeting is secret and has very important people, one may always ask whether it makes any sense for all the people to gather. The idea that such meetings automatically create results and plans to "transform the planet if not the Universe" is foolish. People who believe such things must imagine that the Bilderberg group is something like the central committee of a communist party in a major non-democratic country.

But what makes these top communists able to decide about the fate of the country (like China) isn't their secret meeting behind the closed door. What makes them powerful is the constitution and laws by which they may control the police, courts, and other things. The Bilderbergers "only" have the jobs and power that we mostly know – because these jobs are not hiding behind the closed door. Their power is limited so whatever they do behind the closed door simply cannot directly change the planet due to the locality of the Standard Model. ;-)

I think it's very desirable for the powerful and intelligent people like that to meet and exchange their ideas, whatever they are doing. I also think it's right when some of these meetings that are supposed to inspire the people happen behind the closed door – without distractions and the risk that important information will be leaked or abused by the rest of the world. And I think that it's good that despite some of these people's ingenuity and creativity, their control over the fate of the countries, the planet, and the Universe is less comprehensive than the power boasted by the top communists and their counterparts in some not so democratic countries.

Pensions and GDP growth rate: a correlation

Off-topic: A map in German newspapers shows the percentage of GDP that 19 Eurozone countries paid for pensions in 2013.

I compared them with the 2005-2014 GDP growth rates of these countries. The correlation coefficient is a staggering –0.77.

One aspect of the correlation is that when countries' GDP grows, a lower percentage of their GDP is enough to cover the predetermined pensions. Well, the other interpretation is that lower pensions expenses imply a higher growth rate.

The best linear fit to calculate the annual growth rate $\Gamma$ from the percentage of GDP for pensions $P$ is$\Gamma = 5\% - P/3.$ So if you want a positive growth rate $\Gamma$, you should better keep your pensions below 15 percent! Greece has over 16%. Surely not a good starting point to expect any economic growth. By the correlation calculated from the Eurozone data, one expects a negative growth rate. Greece has of course received a much more negative growth rate – partly for other reasons. But I am convinced that it's still a common sense rule vaguely implied by the data that these high pensions are incompatible with the economic growth.