In August 2024, B.Grimm LNG, a unit of B.Grimm Power, imported 65,000 tons of LNG via PTT’s Map Ta Phut LNG terminal 1 (LMPT1) in Rayong province.
The firm purchased its first LNG cargo from Japan’s Sumitomo.
With this shipment, B.Grimm Power became the first private company in Thailand to import LNG for distribution to small power producers (SPP), according to the firm.
“B.Grimm LNG Limited imported two LNG cargoes in October and December, and a total of three cargoes of 198,000 tonnes throughout 2024 to fuel our SPPs through the pool gas system,” B.Grimm Power said in its 2024 results report.
The company said that the Thai economy is expected to grow near the previous assessment, at 2.7 percent in 2024 and 2.9 percent in 2025.
Moreover, key growth drivers include tourism, boosted private consumption supported by government stimulus, and a rise in exports driven by increased demand for electronics, B.Grimm Power said.
However, recovery remains uneven across sectors, with some merchandise exports, manufacturing, and SMEs facing pressures from structural challenges, the firm said.
“The SPP gas cost guideline is projected to range between THB 320-350/MMBtu, which is about the same range as it was in 2024, where the actual SPP gas cost ended up being THB 324/MMBtu,” it said.
“Up to five LNG shipments are planned for import into the pool gas system in 2025,” B.Grimm Power said.
In March 2022, B.Grimm LNG signed a terminal use deal with a unit of state-owned oil and gas firm PTT to use the latter’s Map Ta Phut LNG import terminal in Rayong province.
Prior to that, B.Grimm LNG has been authorized to import up to 1.20 million tons of LNG per year.
Thailand currently imports LNG via two import terminals operated by PTT.
These terminals include the first Map Ta Put LNG terminal (LMPT 1) with a capacity of 11.5 mtpa and the second Map Ta Phut LMPT2 LNG terminal, also known as the Nong Fab LNG terminal, with a capacity of 7.5 mtpa.
The power firm and LNG trader said on Monday that the power station’s unit 3 has started commercial operation on March 1.
As a result, all of the units from 1 to 3 in Goi thermal power station have commenced commercial operations.
Jera said the new unit with a generating capacity of 780 MW uses an LNG-fired gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC) system.
The joint venture of Tokyo Electric and Chubu Electric believes the unit will contribute to a stable electricity supply and mitigate environmental impact by reducing CO2 emissions.
Jera, Eneos Power, and Kyushu Electric Power will “continue working through Goi United Generation LLC to ensure the safe operation of the Goi thermal power station, thereby contributing to the stable supply of electricity.”
The company previously said that it expects to launch the third unit in March 2025.
Jera launched the first new LNG unit in August 2024 and the second unit in November 2024.
Each of the units is able to produce 780 MW for a total of 2,340 MW.
Image: Jera
The Goi thermal power station replacement project involved the replacement of six ageing gas-fired steam power units at the facility.
A Venezuelan military ship was spotted in Guyana’s waters on Saturday morning sailing close to ExxonMobil’s producing FPSO claiming that the units were operating in “a disputed area”.
In a national address, Guyana president Irfaan Ali revealed that the Venezuelan vessel, which entered Guyanese waters on Saturday morning, was part of its coast guard fleet.
“During this incursion, the Venezuelan vessel approached various assets in our exclusive waters including FPSO Prosperity. The patrol vessel transmitted a radio message declaring that the FPSO was operating in what it terms ‘disputed international waters’ before continuing its course southwesterly towards other FPSOs,” Ali said.
He noted “unequivocally” that Guyana’s maritime boundaries are recognised under international law and that “this incursion is a matter of grave concern”
President Ali has already informed the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), an intergovernmental organisation that is a political and economic union of 15 member states and five associated members throughout the Americas, the Caribbean, the Atlantic Ocean, and other international partners of the incident. Reportedly, the CARICOM chair has already contacted the Venezuelan government on the issue.
There are hundreds of Guyanese and other workers on various vessels involved in oil production in Guyana’s Stabroek offshore block. Monitoring of the area has been increased and the country’s coast guard will also dispatch more teams to the area.
Venezuela has been laying claims to Guyana’s territory for the longest time even though the dispute was settled in 1899. The two are currently before the International Court seeking a final juridical settlement regarding the ownership of the 160,000 sq km Esequibo area.
The US State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere reacted to the incursion as well, in a way protecting the interests of the US-based supermajor. It condemned the actions, describing them as “an unacceptable threat to Guyana’s internationally-recognised maritime territory”.
“Venezuelan naval vessels threatening ExxonMobil’s FPSO unit is unacceptable and a clear violation of Guyana’s internationally-recognised maritime territory. Further provocation will result in consequences for the Maduro regime. The United States reaffirms its support for Guyana’s territorial integrity and the 1899 arbitral award,” the statement said.
When it comes to US natural gas production, exports, and imports, a key element is that the price of natural gas in the US has collapsed since about 2008, a few years after US production from fracking took off majestically and reversed the years-long trend of declining production.
Currently, natural gas futures trade for about $3.76 per million Btu, after a 12-month surge, roughly the same as in some periods in 1996 and 1997. The year-ago price of around $1.90 was right back where it had been in 1995, despite 30 years of inflation in other products and services. The price collapsed as overproduction set in by 2009, with no liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in the lower 48 states as an outlet.
A substantial part of natural gas is produced as a byproduct of fracked oil wells. Some years ago, in shale fields that lacked gas-takeaway capacity, the associated gases coming from the oil wells, including methane, were flared, a huge waste of a valuable natural resource, and also a big source of air pollution.
In North Dakota’s portion of the Bakken Formation, between 30% and 35% of the associated gases were flared in 2012 through 2014. Flaring is now down to 5%. Across the US, flaring is down to about 0.5% of total gas produced, from close to 2% in 2018, according to EIA estimates.
This concept of associated natural gas – natural gas as byproduct of oil production from fracked wells – led to overproduction of natural gas amid limited demand and was one of the factors why the price collapsed.
US natural gas production: Drill Baby Drill since the early 2000s.
Marketed production of natural gas rose by 0.6% in 2024, to a record 41.4 trillion cubic feet, according to EIA data on Friday.
Since 2006, production has surged by 113%. Since 2017, production has surged by 41%. The fracking boom in the US – including the surge in crude oil production – has rejiggered the energy landscape globally.
Some Drill-Baby-Drill milestones:
In 2011, the US became the largest natural gas producer in the world.
In 2016, natural gas surpassed coal as the dominant fuel for power generation in the US.
In 2016, the first LNG export terminal in the lower 48 states came on line, and large-scale LNG exports began.
In 2017, the US became a net exporter of natural gas, exporting more than importing.
In 2023, the US became the largest exporter of LNG.
In 2024, power generation from natural gas rose by 3.3% to a record of 1,864,874 GWh, with a share of 42.7% of total power generated. Coal’s share dropped to a record low of 14.9%, from 51% in 2001 (I discussed US power generation by source in 2024 here).
US natural gas exports.
The US exports natural gas via pipelines to Mexico and Canada. Since 2016, the US has been exporting natural gas as LNG to the rest of the world. As more export terminals were built, LNG exports soared, creating more demand for US production.
Total exports of natural gas via pipeline and as LNG rose by 1.3% in 2024 to a new record of 7.71 trillion cubic feet, or about 18% of US marketed production.
LNG exports rose by 0.6% to a record 4.37 trillion cubic feet.
Pipeline exports to Mexico and Canada rose by 2.3% to 3.34 trillion cubic feet:
To Mexico: +4.6% to a record 2.35 trillion cubic feet
To Canada: -2.8% to 1.0 trillion cubic feet.
Imports increased by 7.4% to 3.14 trillion cubic feet, of which 3.13 trillion cubic feet via pipeline from Canada, and 0.016 trillion cubic feet via LNG in the Boston area, which is still inadequately connected via pipeline to the producing areas in the US.
This chart shows imports (blue) as a negative figure and total exports as a positive figure (red). The import peak was in 2007.
Canada imports from the US and the US imports from Canada because the geographical layout of where pipelines, producing areas, and population centers are. On a net basis (exports minus imports), the US imported from Canada 2.13 trillion cubic feet in 2024.
LNG exports by region.
LNG exports to Europe – the largest buyer of US LNG for the third year in a row – dropped by 22% from the record in 2023. They still accounted for nearly half of US LNG exports (dotted red line in the chart below). Germany started setting up LNG import terminals in 2022, and by 2024, 15% of US LNG going to Europe was unloaded in Germany, up from 0% in 2021. The other big importing countries were those with LNG import terminals that feed into the European system of pipelines, on top of which were the Netherlands, France, the UK, Spain, and Italy.
LNG exports to Asia rose by 33%, but were below the record in 2021. All major LNG importers increased their imports. The biggest importers were Japan, South Korea, China, India, and Taiwan (green).
Exports to Latin America and the Middle East & Africa rose but remained relatively low.
The first three introductory papers explained the “Seven P Plan of the Left” in a bottom-line up-front synopsis format that (a) defined the seven key institutions of any given society, (b) explained the central role of the University system in controlling the key institutions, and (c) explained how the Frankfurt School merged with Dewey’s pragmatism and used critical race theory and repressive tolerance to discard scientific procedures in the social sciences to avoid discarding the Rousseau, Marx and Engels thought lineage.
The more one understands the Left’s focus on replacing the classical University curriculum with Leftist and feminist literature, the more one will understand why the Left immediately discarded standard “scientific procedures” in each of the major topical areas that they took over as discussed at length by Tooby and Cosmides in “The Psychological Foundations of Culture” (1992).
In retrospect, the Leftists and feminists discarded the domain-specific gender-differentiated theories in evolutionary and micro-psychological behavioral theory that explain the innate core drives of human beings in the process of pursuing self-survival and survival of the species, which occurs in gradations of constructive versus destructiveperipheral shaping dynamics on the family and small group.
The core-periphery method of theorizing in psychological personality theory merges with the Proper and Perverted Forms of Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government and the virtuous and vicious cycles of economic growth theories. This makes it possible to laterally integrate the key frameworks of the major micro and macro social sciences. Yet the Left discarded the nomos-physis distinction of Classical Political Philosophy and argued vehemently against the Austrian School of free-market theories in favor of heavily regulated economic theory. (For example see Kenneth Jameson and Charles Wilber, The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment, 1992 and 1996 editions that explain Dependency and Structuralist theories.)
The more one understands that the Left abandoned the scientific project in the macro behavioral sciences to avoid performing autopsies on the failed Marxist experiments, the more one will understand why the Left consistently doubles down on both the “repressive tolerance” tactics of Marcuse and Alinsky and pushed the “critical race and gender theory” of the Frankfurt School in the soft philosophical and social sciences.
It was the Frankfurt School pseudo theories that further exasperated the decline of scientific principles in the philosophical and social sciences which further devolved into the “fashionable nonsense” (Bricmont and Sokal 1997) of Foucault’s post-modernism and Derrida’s “deconstructionism.”
The Problem and the Solution
This series of papers needs to explain two major trends. First, a brief history of Leftist literature that was instrumental in taking over the University system en route to taking over the other “Ps.” Secondly, it needs to be known from the start that the University system had developed common methodological systems and compatible causal frameworks during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s as discussed in the previous paper.
Herbert Gintis in The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences (2009) believed that neither the common methodology nor compatible frameworks existed and believed that they needed to be developed.
But in reality, the value-neutral bifurcated constructive versus destructive behavioral dynamic methodologies and compatible micro and macro behavioral frameworks have existed since the 1970s but were drowned out by the ideological subterfuge of “critical theory,” “repressive tolerance” and its merger with Alinski tactics and the methods of “non-violent action.”
The philosophical and social sciences developed more than enough compatible frameworks in the five topical areas of (1) evolutionary, (2) psychological, (3) political, (4) economic, and (5) geopolitical theory to place the entire range of the philosophical and social sciences into a singular dual-independent variable Cartesian-style model. This series of frameworks is presented in the Unified Behavioral Theory of the Philosophical and Social Science slide sets on YouTube recorded in December 2019.
Abandon Scientific Principles and Protect Marxism
The bottom line is that (a) all gender-differentiated domain-specific theories in evolutionary theory and Psychology were summarily discarded since the 1980s, (b) the free market “non-central controller” free market theories were also discarded on the macro behavioral end of the academic spectrum to (c) to promote the continual rebranding of the Rousseau, Marx, and Engels thought lineage in the form of critical theory, repressive tolerance, postmodernism and deconstruction, and greater regulation over the means of production.
What needs to be understood is that the domain-specific gender-differentiated theories that are consistent with evolutionary stable strategies were discarded in the micro behavioral sciences, while the free-market theories that proved to be much more effective than centrally planned economies during the Great Ideological Experiments of the Twentieth Century, were also discarded since the 1980s.
The significance is that the Left has discarded the analytical frameworks that should have been confirmed after the Great Ideological Experiments of the Twentieth Century ended in the collapse of communism in the early 1990s, but the Left kept the domain-general infinitely malleable premise in micro psychological theory and propagated Frankfurt School and postmodernist theory instead.
The gravity of the situation is only realized when one understands that the University graduates of the 1990s and 2000s are the “experts” that run the Western governmental bureaucracies today.
The more one understands the degree to which the University system has devolved in the past several decades, the more one will realize that an alternative university system needs to be developed which (a) revitalizes the scientific project and (b) laterally integrates the “old school” frameworks to extend Tooby and Cosmides Integrated Causal Model (ICM) throughout the Philosophical and Social Sciences.
The purpose of beginning this series of the “Seven P Plan” short papers is to provide a quick bottom line up-front overview of “what” has occurred in the University system itself and its impact on Western society at large since the 1940s. This series of papers will continue to explain “how the university system got woke” and replaced the old-school “real theories” of human behavior” (See G C Homans, in Handbook of Modern Sociology, edited by Faris, 1964) with fashionable nonsense (Bricmont and Sokal, 1997).
The important thing to understand is that the Frankfurt School and the New Left used Dewey’s emphasis on transitioning the Discipline of Philosophy from focusing on the nomos-physis distinction of the Ancient Greeks concerning the difference between “the laws of man” versus “the laws of nature,” or “the ideologies of man” versus “the realities of human nature,” and focus on social justice activism and social equity instead.
Dewey also argued the that discipline of philosophy should adopt the scientific method and use it to advance social justice advocacy. However, the effect of this was that the Frankfurt School abandoned both the nomos-physis distinction and the scientific method because the two concepts are inextricably linked in comparative political and economic ideological systems theory. The Left wanted to avoid performing autopsies on failed Marxist communist and socialist experiments as the Cold War progressed because the scientific comparison between ideological systems would lead an investigator to discard the Rousseau, Marx, and Engels thought lineage and gravitate toward a Montesquieu, Hume and Adam Smith thought lineage.
Following this line of reasoning, the Frankfurt School and the New Left abandoned both the nomos-physis distinction in the discipline of philosophy regarding ultimate causation, and the scientific method in comparative ideological systems theory in the areas of political, economic, and geopolitical development theory regarding proximate causation in the social sciences.
The Frankfurt School gradually replaced the nomos-physis distinction and the scientific project in the philosophical and social sciences with critical race and gender theory, combined with the “repressive tolerance” tactic to justify the shouting down of conservative thinkers on college campuses.
The effect was that the real theories of human behavior were discarded in both the micro behavioral studies areas of evolutionary theory and psychology, as well as the macro social scientific areas of political, economic, and geopolitical theory. (See John Harsanyi, “Rational-Choice Models of Political Behavior vs. Functionalist and Conformist Theories,” World Politics, 1969)
In other words, the Frankfurt school discarded the two-gender domain-specific frameworks in evolutionary and psychological theory in the micro-behavioral end of the spectrum and discarded the free market, political, economic, and geopolitical world-view theory in the macro end of the behavioral spectrum as well.
The purpose of this slide set series is to explain how and why the Left abandoned the scientific project that Tooby and Cosmides explained in “The Psychological Foundations of Culture” published in The Adapted Mind in 1992.
The Standard Social Scientific Model now expresses the fashionable nonsense of “critical gender and race theory”, combined with the “repressive tolerance” tactics of Marcuse discussed in The Critique of Pure Tolerance published in 1965 with Robert Wolff and Barrington Moore.
The themes were advanced by Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals (1971) and Jean Sharp in the three-part trilogy The Politics of Non-Violent Action: Power and Struggle, The Politics of Non-Violent Action: The Methods of Non-Violent Action, and The Politics of Non-Violent Action: The Dynamics of Non-Vilent Action released in series in 1973.
These works gave rise to the postmodernism of Foucault and the deconstructionism of Derrida in one sense and became the basis of the color revolutions sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development and the National Endowment of Democracy abroad, and the use of these tactics in the Antifa-BLM “peaceful protests” that were anything but non-violent and peaceful during the 2020 election cycle in the United States.
The use of these tactics during the post 9/11/2001 Global War in Terror era has led to the destabilization of several countries in North Africa in 2011 and has been used to remove and/or harass democratically elected politicians in Central Europe since the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine. The United States is now associated with interfering in the elections of other countries and proxy wars across Europe and Asia.
The Constructive-Destructive Real Theories of Behavior
Amidst the chaos of repressive tolerance and the nonsense of critical gender and race theory, few people realized that the “real theories of human behavior” were developed by a combination of domain-specific theories of Freud (1922), Rogers (1951 and 1961), Maslow (1954 and 1962), and Fromm’s overarching “productive versus sadomasochistic” dichotomy published in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1972) merge with the macro theories of Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government and Economic growth theory by Seymour Lipset (1959), that can be advanced to meet the criteria of George Caspar Homans (in Robert Feris, Handbook of Modern Sociology, (1964), John Harsanyi in Essays on Ethics and Game Theory (1971) and Herbert Gintis in “Game Theory and a Unification of the Behavioral Sciences” (2006) and The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences (2009).
In short, the core-periphery of theorizing in psychological personality theories (see Salvatore Maddi, Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis, 1971), produced enough constructive versus destructive behavioral dynamic frameworks in the five major topical areas of evolutionary, psychological, political, economic, and geopolitical theory to place the entire range of the philosophical and social sciences into a singular dual-independent variable Cartesian-style model.
The research design follows both Baconian scientific principles and Pareto linear programming optimization and minimization standards of understanding trade-offs and opportunity costs of policy choices. (Harsanyi 1969 reprinted in Harsanyi 1971)
In retrospect, the Left discarded the constructive versus destructive behavioral dynamic models in psychological fulfillment theory and the macro social sciences by the 1980s to such an extent that by 2006 Herbert Gintis argued in “Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences” (2006) that (a) neither the common methodology nor (b) the compatible frameworks existed to (c) unify the behavioral sciences.
The reality is that all the ingredients required to extend Tooby and Cosmides Integrated Causal Model concept across the full spectrum of the philosophical and social sciences and supersede the logically incoherent Standard Social Scientific Model has existed since the 1970s.
All of the ‘constructive versus destructive’ behavioral dynamic frameworks in psychology, merge with Aristolte’s ‘Proper and Perverted’ Government Form macro behavioral theory, which merges with the ‘virtuous versus vicious’ ‘growth versus nongrowth’ cycles in economic theory, and then linked to More Developed Country (MDC) and Less Developed Country (LDC) outcomes advancing the format expressed by Seymour Lipset in “Some Social Requisites for Democracy” published in 1959.
The Frankfurt School discarded all the accurate theories of human behavior during the Cold War to mask the failures associated with Marxist experiments while continually rebranding Leftism. The Seven Ps will be explained to express this historical reality.
The Significance of the Seven Ps
(1) The “Professor P” refers to the replacement of the traditional Judeo-Christianity and Ancient Greek Political Philosophy with Leftist literature in the University system. In doing so, the Left has discarded all theories of human behavior that are evolutionary, politically, economically, and geopolitically stable strategies.
(2) The “Prosecutor P” refers to the practice of replacing all free-market curricula in the pre-law and law school programs that protect private property and capitalist modes of production. The goal is to only hire and promote progressive “social-justice” oriented attorneys in all local, state, and Federal level prosecutorial and judicial positions following the direction of John Dewey. The goal is to ameliorate the Ten Amendments to ban conservative curricula in the private sphere as well as to mitigate conservative resistance.
(3) The “Police P” refers to the replacement of traditional training curricula and placement of social justice progressives in all police, military, and intelligence community “gun carrying” positions to expedite the “transformation of America” and overcome any resistance from the conservative and working classes.
(4) The role of the “Politician P” is to advance all progressive welfare state policies, and expedite the control over the other Ps.
(5) The “Press P” refers to the practice of promoting Dewey’s focus on social justice activism and Rousseau’s disdain for property rights and marital rites to promote feminist and Leftist ideals in all mass communications mediums. In practice, failed Marxist programs are not discussed to protect the notion of Socialist bureaucratic infallibility. Dissenters are to be discredited. Leftists have turned Marxism into a religion.
(6) The “Priest P” refers to the reshaping of the curricula of as many theological schools as possible to promote feminist matriarchal family structure values and displace traditional Abrahamic Patriarchal conceptions of the family. The Left promotes the idea of equality between varying degrees of pair bonding and conceptions of the family. However, these conceptions of “love” are not to be discussed in terms of Maynard Smith’s concepts of evolutionary stable strategies.
(7) The “Parental P”—the goal of the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage is to replace the Abrahamic Patriarchal system with a single-parent matriarchal family unit. The parents are to be superseded by the preschool through the high school educational system.
The “Why Experts are Democrats” is posted below. The series of papers explaining why the vast majority are charlatans is expressed in the other papers in this series.
The Seven P Plan of the Left Part 2: The Departure from Evolutionary Stable Strategies and the Demographic Collapse of the West and Their Pacific Rim Allies
Introduction: Ideology and Differing Family and Government Forms
The Seven P Plan of the Left series of papers explains how the basis of Leftism derives from Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” (17655) and aims to rid society of “property rights and “martial rites” as the means of achieving the Leftist goal of “equality” as their “highest good.”
Since thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not commit adultery is in the Ten Commandments in the Abrahamic religions, Rousseau and the Left have the goal of ridding society of property rights, marital rights, and religion.
In the process of teaching this in the University system from the 1970s forward, they have created the circumstances where their graduates now teach this in the Kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational system also. The result is that the West is no longer demographically stable in terms of population replacement rates, while the West is becoming financially, economically, and politically unstable as well. The basis of Leftist thought and the societal instability that it creates needs to be more widely understood to reverse its destructive effects.
Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality
Many people are not familiar with the history of post-Rousseau Leftist literature and do not realize that Leftism has more to do with exalting gender equality based on the single-mother family concept rather than exalting the “proletariat” working class. The works of Rousseau, Marx, and Engles explain the relationship between micro Family Forms and macro Government and Economic Forms in their writings. Their writings explain the nexus between Marxism and Feminism expressed by such feminist writers as Simone De Beauvoir in The Second Sex (1949).
Many blue-collar men are finding out that Leftism has more to do with advancing Feminism than “working class” issues as their jobs were steadily shipped overseas since the 1980s migrants were welcomed in by the millions, and marriage far too often ends in a life-destroying divorce court nightmare.
The United States is no longer pursuing an evolutionarily stable strategy in a micro-behavioral sense as it is also becoming politically, economically, and geopolitically unstable in a macro sense. The “Ps” are defined differently in each paper in this series to illuminate different aspects of the “long march through the institution” strategy by the Leftists and Globalists to transform America into a single-party statist utopia. A systematic view of the problem provides a systematic understanding of the solution.
The Seven P Plan
(1) The “Professor P”—what people should be aware of is that as the 1960s Civil Rights and Vietnam War protesters gained their Philosophy Doctorates and gained university professorships they began to discard any “objective measures and standards” in the soft philosophical and social sciences as explained by Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind published in 1988.
John Tooby and Lena Cosmides explained in “The Psychological Foundations of Culture” published in 1992 that as “the 1960s Liberals took over the department chairs in the 1980s” they quickly “abandoned the scientific project” in the social sciences. The scientific project refers to the development of compatible methodological standards and behavioral frameworks in the micro and macro social sciences that would generate logical coherency among the disciplines of philosophy and the social sciences over time. The result is that human studies are now a logically incoherent web of “fashionable nonsense.” (see Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science, 1997)
(2) The “Prosecutor P”—refers to the gradual replacement of Adam Smith’s writings that explain the nexus between the evolution of property rights to the evolution of economic production and government function in society in the pre-law undergraduate and graduate law school programs with Fabian incremental socialist literature on how to “transform Western Christian Capitalist society to Atehistic Social Democracies. The purpose of changing the curriculum in legal theory is to teach the students which laws need to be changed to transform traditional Western conceptions of the family and government Form over time to Fabian Socialist ideals.
(3) The “Police P” refers to the strategy of the Leftists, neoliberal Statists, and neoconservative Globalists to gain control over all police, military, and private security gun carriers while curtailing private firearm ownership. The goal is to reeducate the gun carriers of society to promote social justice rather than the preservation of the US Constitution due to its bias towards Western Christian males. The police and military routinely put down Leftist rebellions in Western Europe during the revolutions of 1848. The Left knows they need to control the police and military gun carriers and outlaw private firearm ownership to prevent any Christian resistance or counter-revolution.
(4) The “Politician P” refers to the need to gain a critical mass of political leaders at all local, state, and federal levels to promote the transformation of America from Christian Capitalist Republics toward secular and atheistic socialist welfare states over time.
(5) The “Press P” refers to the training of journalists to promote social justice issues across all mass communications media and gradually shift cultural norms of society to accept a Fabian socialist single-party state. The goal of the press is to promote the shared narcissistic fantasy across society.
(6) The “Priest P” refers to the reshaping of the agenda of as many theological schools as possible to portray the Abrahamic patriarchal system as both anachronistic and boorish while promoting single-parent matriarchal family structure as positive and progressive.
(7) The “Parental P” is the ultimate focus of Friedrich Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884) which explains the relationship of family conception and socialist matriarchal Government Form. The goal is to minimize the role of the parents, especially the father, in the raising of children. The role of the parents is supposed to be superseded by the role of the Leftist university-trained preschool through twelfth-grade teachers.
The abandonment of the scientific project in the Western university system under the guise of autarkic freedom of each discipline to interpret reality as they wish (Tooby and Cosmides) has been effective in taking over the “Seven Ps” and changing the “cultural hegemony” of America.
But rather than creating a utopia, the West is no longer pursuing: (1) evolutionary, (2) psychological, (3) political, (4) economic/demographic, and (5) geopolitical stable strategies under the logically incoherent “Standard Social Scientific Model” (SSSM, Tooby and Cosmides). The SSSM should be replaced by a logically coherent Integrated Causal Model (ICM) of the five major topical areas mentioned above.
The “Why the Experts are Democrats” chart is posted below. The University system abandoned “objective measures and standards” and the “scientific project” decades ago and currently only produces charlatans.
The Seven P Plan of the Left Series of Papers—Defining the Problem Set
The Purpose of the Seven P Plan of the Left series of papers is to explain how the Left has abandoned “objective measures and standards” (Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, 1988) and “abandoned the scientific project” (Barkow, Tooby and Cosmides, The Adapted Mind, 1992) in the philosophical and social sciences and the social sciences by the late 1980s.
The result is that the philosophical and social sciences in the University system have become a jumbled mess of incoherent “arguments” tearing down an evolutionary, political, and economically stable society as opposed to a logical system of micro-psychological and macro-political, sociological, economic, and geopolitical theories that a stable and enduring society is based on.
It is ultimately the abandonment of the scientific project in the University system that is leading to the “strange death of Europe” as described by Douglas Murray or “the fate of empires” in terms of John Glubb.
Avoiding the Performance of Autopsies on Failed Marxist Experiments
The primary reason for the “abandonment of the scientific project” in the Western University system is that the Left has avoided performing autopsies on failed Marxist experiments to further their transformation of America and the West toward a socialist utopia based on total equality as opposed to merit and functional productivity.
The performance of autopsies on the dysfunctionality of the failed Marxist bureaucratic experiments is antithetical to their goal of transforming America and the West into their idyllic vision of a globalist socialist utopia run by central bureaucracies. The Left abandoned the systematic investigation of constructive versus destructive human behavioral patterns of the failed Marxist experiments to preserve their utopian vision and is destroying the West.
This series of papers advances the thesis of Tooby and Cosmides in “The Psychological Foundations of Culture” (in Barkow, Tooby and Cosmides 1992) that the revitalization of the scientific project was required to restore systematic investigation and objectivity in the Western University system.
The goal is to develop a logically coherent explanation of micro and macro human behavioral theories expressed as an “integrated causal model.” An Integrated Causal Model consisting of interdisciplinary frameworks linked in series is easily obtainable since every discipline had already developed overarching frameworks of analysis by the 1970s.
These overarching frameworks incorporate all of the subfield theories inside their respective discipline and can be merged laterally because they share a similar constructive versus destructive dichotomy format. When arranged in an “individual psychology to a family and small group social psychology segment” that is conjoined with a “large group political, economic, and global geopolitical segment,” the arrangement lends itself to a singular Cartesian-style system.
This system is expressed in the Unified Behavioral Theory of the Philosophical and Social Sciences and represents an integrated causal model of the social sciences to meet the requirements of Tooby and Cosmides (1992) in evolutionary and Nobel Laureate John Harsanyi in interdisciplinary economics and game theory. (See John Harsanyi, “Explanation and Comparative Dynamics in Social Science,” Behavioral Science, 1960: and “A Bargaining Model for Social Status in Informal Groups and Formal Organizations,” Behavioral Science, 1966)
Leo Strauss and the Destructive Germ of Marxism
Lastly, it is important to understand that reversing the self-destructive “Seven P Plan of the Left” on both sides of the Atlantic begins with the reformation of the University system as the basis of reforming the rest of the societal institutions. The decline of the West needs to be reversed. A simple reorganization of the University curriculum could facilitate this process.
The logically coherent system of social scientific theories can be readily achieved by organizing the academic staff. Since the overarching constructive-destructive frameworks already exist in the areas of evolutionary, psychological, political, economic, and geopolitical theory, all that needs to be done is to (a) point out what the constructive-destructive behavioral frameworks are and (b) explain how they link laterally into a coherent system. The benefit is that this system illustrates a design in nature and, therefore, a designer of nature.
The objective of Marxism is to obfuscate the design of nature as the means of obfuscating the designer of nature since it is an atheistic ideology. Hence, the Left avoids the performance of autopsies on failed Marxist experiments and simultaneously abandons the scientific project. These two academic trends need to be reversed if the conservative Universities slightly reorganize their curriculum to maximize its effectiveness.
The destructive Seven P Plan of the Left is described in this series of papers and explains how the Trump administration can initiate the revitalization of the University system in the conservative Universities and the Austrian Schools of economic thought in conjunction with the interdisciplinary economic sciences and game theoretic communities. In this sense, the “Seven P Plan of the Left” series of short papers explains the “problem set”, whereas the Unified Behavioral Theory/Integrated Causal Model represents the “solution set.”
An Integrated Causal Model as a Simplification of the Social Sciences
The Unified Behavioral Theory/Integrated Causal Model of the Social Sciences is way simpler than it sounds at first blush. The frameworks are presented in six books. Barwkow Tooby and Cosmides, The Adapted Mind, (1992), Erich Fromm’s The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973), Seymour Lipset’s article “Some Social Requisites for Democracy” (1959), Aristotle’s Politics that explains the Six Forms of Government, and general microeconomic and macroeconomic texts.
The core of the model is based on the government Form theories of Plato in The Republic and Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government presented in Politics. Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government framework is controlling because it has the Proper and Perverted Forms of Government that merge with the functional-dysfunctional and constructive-destructive behavioral dichotomies in psychological personality theory and the virtuous-vicious functional-dysfunctional economic theory. Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government is the behavioral framework that integrates the entire range of the philosophical and social sciences.
Furthermore, if one performs autopsies on failed Marxist experiments in political and economic history classes in conjunction with teaching Plato and Aristotle and basic economics courses, then one can see how Marxist bureaucratic systems are always dysfunctional for a multiplicity of reasons.
One would think that any University could teach the relationship of classical Greek Government form theories, Lipset’s “Some Social Requisites for Democracy” which provides the relationship of Aristotle’s Six Forms of Government to Economic Gwoth/Demographic rates of change proportions to First and Second World more developed country outcomes and Third and Fourth Word less developed country outcomes.
The Need For an Interdisciplinary Fusion Cell in the University System
Protests at the University System have motives – Created on X by Grok for the 7 P Plan
It is Lipset’s macro-political, economic, and geopolitical sequence segment that provides the basis for establishing logical coherence in the philosophical and social sciences. It begs the question “So why don’t they? The answer is that the Philosophical and Social Sciences lack a functional information fusion cell like multinational corporations and functional military have.
The Discipline of Physics has performed the fusion cell role in the physical sciences but the discipline of Philosophy was taken over by the Frankfort School neo-Marxists and abandoned objective measures and standards and comparative ideological systems analysis—the two elements of the scientific method—the comparison of competing hypotheses and measurement systems. For this reason, the discipline of Philosophy can no longer perform the fusion cell function.
The Unified Theory of the Philosophical and Social Sciences/Integrated Causal Model is more of a simplification model at its core that follows the guidelines of complexity theory, but its main function is that it is the guidelines for a functional fusion center for the philosophical and social sciences.
Tooby and Cosmides’ argument in “The Psychological Foundations of Culture” is correct, the social sciences are taught haphazardly. Their expertise was in Evolutionary Biology so they didn’t know how to fix the philosophical and social sciences but their criticism was correct. The Unified Behavioral Theory/Integrated Causal Model lines up the micro and macro behavioral social sciences in a consistent functional-dysfunctional and constructive-destructive behavioral dynamic model to arrive at a solution.
The Unified Behavioral Theory/Integrated Causal Model of the Philosophical and Social Sciences is expressed in separate papers and slide sets. Please read the “Seven P Plan of the Left” series of papers to better understand why the Left is panicking because they mistakenly believe that leading the West to economic ruin is the pathway to their Globalist Statist utopia. This understanding sheds light on why the current political climate is the best time to begin reversing the destructive tendencies in North America and Europe.
Ideology and Differing Family and Government Forms
The “Seven P Plan” describes the seven key governmental and social institutions required to (a) transform the West from a Christian Capitalist Republic based on the Patriarchal nuclear family concept to (b) an Atheistic Socialist single-party welfare state that exalts the idea of matriarchal and alternative conceptions of the family following Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Men (1755) and Friedrich Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884).
The Seven P Plan
(1) The “Professor P” refers to the replacement of the traditional Western university curricula based on the evolution of Judeo-Christianity in conjunction with Ancient Greek Political Philosophy with post-Rousseauian Leftist literature. Leftist literature exalts both Atheism and the welfare state to better support matriarchal families. Following the ideas of Marcuse, Leftists have systematically excluded all competing hypotheses of human behavior in the university curricula.
(2) The “Prosecutor P” refers to the practice of replacing all free-market curricula in the pre-law and law school programs as the means of placing Left-leaning attorneys in all prosecutorial and judicial positions to override any legal objections to transforming America into a welfare state.
(3) The “Police P” refers to the replacement of traditional training curricula with Leftist curricula in all police, military, and intelligence community “gun carrying” positions at all federal, state, and local levels. The Left wants full control of the enforcement arm of the government to subdue any resistance.
(4) The “Politician P” refers to the replacement of all Western classical curricula with Leftist literature as the means of generating more Left-leaning politicians at all federal, state, and local levels to expand the Great Society welfare state programs.
(5) The “Press P” refers to the practice of replacing traditional curricula in the university schools of journalism to promote feminism and Leftism in all mass communications markets. The media typically performs character assassination of anyone who opposes them.
(6) The “Priest P” refers to the reshaping of the curricula of as many theological schools as possible to promote feminist matriarchal family structure values and displace the traditional Abrahamic Patriarchal conceptions of the family by presenting father-headed households as “outdated.”
(7) The “Parental P” refers to the goal of the Rousseau-Marx-Engels thought lineage to replace the Abrahamic Patriarchal system with a single-parent matriarchal family that rests on mass redistributive programs expressed in the history of feminist literature.
Experts or Charlatans?
The chart on the next page explains why all “experts” are “Democrats” while the Unified Behavioral Theory/Integrated Causal Model of the Philosophical and Social Science series of papers and slide sets explains why they are charlatans.
In closing, the reversal of the “Seven P Plan of the Left” begins with using Seymoure Lipset’s ”Some Social Requisites for Democracy” article as a guide to correlate macro behavioral Government Form Frameworks, economic/demographic rates of change proportions, to Geopolitical More Developed-Less Developed Country spectrum to add logical coherency to the macro philosophical and social sciences. In this respect, one can rule out the Rousseau, Marx, and Engles’ series of Foundational, Political, Economic, and Geopolitical frameworks, and then build the behavioral theory around Adam Smith’s series of Foundational, Political, Economic, and Geopolitical (See Kant, Perpetual Peace) theories to parallel the Government From, Economic growth theories/population Growth and Geopolitical Form measurement frameworks.
Petrobras is beefing up its offshore game, throwing four more support vessels into the mix by 2026—bringing the grand total to 48. Brazil’s state-run oil company is gearing up to boost production to 2 million barrels per day (bpd) at the Buzios field by 2030, cementing Brazil’s status as an offshore oil heavyweight.
Petrobras has faced challenging times in recent months. In Q4 2024, Petrobras’ production took a 10.5% hit, sliding to 2.63 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d), thanks to maintenance shutdowns. Exports tanked 22% year-over-year. The trade winds are shifting too—China’s share of Petrobras’ exports shrank to 30%, down from 44%, while Europe’s slice of the pie grew from 28% to 38%. The message? The global oil chessboard is always in motion.
Petrobras is now preparing its next move. The company trimmed its 2025 capital expenditure to $17 billion from $21 billion, but over the next five years, it’s still throwing $111 billion into the mix, including $77 billion, which is earmarked for oil and gas exploration and production activities. That’s a whole lot of cash aimed at keeping its foothold in Brazil’s oil game.
And Petrobras isn’t the only one making power plays. Private oil firms in Brazil are set to boost production by 75% by 2030, according to Wood Mackenzie. Heavy hitters like Shell, Equinor, TotalEnergies, and Repsol Sinopec Brasil are piling into Brazil’s pre-salt fields, chasing that sweet, low-sulfur crude.
A pre-salt field is a geological formation where oil was deposited before the salt layer formed, creating a reservoir protected from escaping to the surface.
Meanwhile, oil prices are doing their usual dance—Brent is hovering around $73.32 per barrel, while WTI is at $69.91. With Petrobras fortifying its fleet, cranking up Buzios, and facing stiffer competition, Brazil’s offshore showdown is just getting started. Buckle up.
Bringing energy costs down will be key to Germany’s economic recovery.
Businesses are urging the incoming government to act swiftly and decisively to lower energy costs and boost energy security in order to help Germany regain competitiveness.
Siemens CEO Bruch called for major investment in new gas-fired power plants.
The new German government that will be formed following this weekend’s elections will face an uphill battle to lift Europe’s largest economy out of two consecutive years of recession.
Bringing energy costs down will be key to Germany’s economic recovery after three years of spiking and highly volatile power and natural gas prices after the shock energy crisis in 2022.
Domestic power prices have been very volatile in recent months amid low wind speeds. Germany has been experiencing lower-than-normal winds for four months, which have reduced wind power generation, boosting electricity prices and the reliance on fossil fuels. Electricity prices have been rising this year due to higher natural gas prices in Europe amid a cold winter, lower wind generation, and faster depletion of natural gas inventories.
For a few years now, high energy costs have dogged many of Germany’s key industries, including car manufacturing, steel making, and chemicals production. The once-revered German industries have been losing competitiveness due to shrinking margins and many manufacturing sites have temporarily or permanently closed. Even German carmakers have proposed what was unthinkable just a few years ago—slash jobs in Germany.
Germany voted in the February 23 snap election as Europe’s biggest economy had just registered a second consecutive year of recession.
GDP fell by 0.2% in 2024 from a year earlier, for the second annual contraction in a row.
“Cyclical and structural pressures stood in the way of better economic development in 2024,” said Ruth Brand, President of the Federal Statistical Office.
“These include increasing competition for the German export industry on key sales markets, high energy costs, an interest rate level that remains high, and an uncertain economic outlook. Against this backdrop, the German economy contracted once again in 2024,” Brand added.
In last Sunday’s election, German voters gave the conservative party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a mandate to begin talks to form the new government. CDU leader Friedrich Merz is likely to be the new chancellor of Germany.
Apart from having to navigate increasingly complex geopolitical waters, the new German government will have to cope with the most pressing issues at home—revive the economy and industry and lower energy bills for industry and for households.
Businesses are urging the incoming government to act swiftly and decisively to lower energy costs and boost energy security in order to help Germany regain competitiveness.
“The first important step now is to quickly transform the election result into a strong government that is capable of action and willing to reform,” Markus Krebber, chief executive of German utility giant RWE, said.
Having a secure energy supply at competitive prices is a “prerequisite” for Germany to revive its economy and strengthen its industry, Krebber wrote in a LinkedIn post after the election.
Christian Bruch, CEO at Siemens Energy, called for energy policy measures, including policy supportive of industrial growth, tendering at least 12 gigawatts (GW) of new gas-fired plants to support the planned coal phase-out, expansion of wind energy and grids, and a strategic policy to secure supply of raw materials.
“In an extremely difficult global and economic situation, Germany now needs a stable government as quickly as possible,” said Hildegard Müller, president of the German auto industry association VDA, commenting on the outcome of the election.
“Companies as a whole and in particular the backbone of our prosperity – the medium-sized businesses – can no longer bear the high energy prices, the excessive bureaucracy and the taxes and duties in their current form,” Müller said.
“A commitment to the medium-sized businesses must be backed up by concrete measures that promise relief in the short, medium and long term.”
Germany’s top industries and power generators want strong, decisive measures from the new government to tackle the industrial downturn—and these actions include energy policy reforms.
