Archive for October, 2017

Interesting Links: Oct 28, 2017

October 28, 2017 6 comments

Here are three interesting articles I came across in the previous few days. They are about three distinct topics, namely deterrence and revenge, vertical vs horizontal censorship and the repulsive logic behind the process of financialization.

Link # 1: The Psychology of Revenge and Deterrence

Why is the instinct for vengeance so strong even when it is clear that widespread death and destruction would be a much more likely outcome than any kind of “victory”? In the event of a nuclear war, why is second-strike retaliation so certain when it may gain nothing of social or material value? We believe these things because humans share a universal thirst for retaliation in the face of threat and in the wake of loss, no matter what classical economists may say to the contrary about how people “should” behave. Indeed, the psychology of revenge and the hatred on which it rests make a seemingly irrational second strike entirely credible. We can apply this analysis to nuclear weapons, but the basic drive is no different than the one that makes most people want to kill anyone who threatens their child, or to hurt a cheating spouse. The instinct for revenge is universal, automatic and immediate. It also serves a function: to deter the threat of future exploitation.

Link # 2: The geometry of censorship and satire

As Dorenko explained it, Kremlin censorship under Putin is “vertical”—top-down censorship that is brutal and frightening when you’re targeted; but also flawed and inefficient as censorship strategies go, because the top-down vertical approach is too narrow, too concentrated under one tyrannical locus at the top. There are too few censors, and too many people and too much material to censor, meaning there’ll always be someone you miss, and there’ll always be journalists or satirists looking for ways to circumvent the narrow-minded censors. This was contrasted to our “horizontal” censorship in the West: rather than coming from a tyrannical top-down force, our censorship is carried out horizontally, between colleagues and peers and “society”; through public pressure and peer pressure; through morality-policing; and from within oneself, one’s fears for one’s career, and fears one can’t necessarily articulate, fears that feel natural rather than imposed upon.

Link # 3: Finance isn’t just an industry. It’s a system of social control.

Our way of thinking about it starts from the idea that the logic of the market doesn’t enforce itself — the logic of the market has to be enforced. And one way of looking at the role of finance is that it enforces the logic of the market and ensures that a whole range of decisions that could potentially be made in many different ways in fact end up being made according to the logic of commodities and of accumulation. Here we’ve been inspired by the economists Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy, among others. So, the most obvious case we highlight is the corporation. On one level, we think of the corporation as a typical organizational form of modern capitalism. But in another sense it’s simply a body of people with some sort of hierarchy and defined roles, engaged in some kind of productive process.It’s not inherently engaged in producing commodities for profit. And if we go back to the prehistory of the corporation, the corporation was just a legally chartered body that carried out some kind of function.

It got appropriated as an organizational form for capitalism specifically, but it didn’t start out as that. The other side of the coin is that there’s a long tradition of thinkers, including Galbraith, Keynes, Veblen, and many others, who saw a natural, or at least possible, evolution of the corporation into the basis of some kind of planning or collective organization of production —that it could easily cease to be oriented toward the needs of profit maximization. So if you think that type of evolution is possible, then you ask, why hasn’t it happened? I would argue that the answer is that somebody stopped it from happening — that there are people in society whose job it is to prevent that from happening. There are people and institutions whose job it is to ensure that corporations remain within capitalist logic, that they remain oriented towards production for sale and for profit. On some level, this is the fundamental role of shareholders and their advocates, and of institutions like private equity.

What do you think? Comments?

The Obama Presidency was a Disaster for Establishment Democrats: 3

October 26, 2017 2 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about why electoral success of Obama in 2008 and 2012 presidential elections did not translate into gains for the democratic party at either the national or state level in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. To make a long story short, Obama’s electoral success was largely due to the fact that the republicans candidates in both elections had way more negative baggage than him. Also, Obama’s presidency was reasonably free of personal scandals and outright PR disasters, such as those which plagued the previous two presidents.

As I have documented in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, a number of things which were allowed to occur (legalized impoverishment of black families, greatly increased enforcement against undocumented hispanic immigrants, continued hollowing out of the 99% through more “free trade” treaties) or not allowed to occur (transition to single-payer health care system, any real reform of the banking and financial sector) show us that his presidency was about furthering the interests of neoliberal establishment types who financed his rise to power. As I have mentioned in a previous post of this series, Obama44 is best understood as the more media-savvy and black version of Reagan40.

Obama worked to further the interests of the neoliberal establishment and their “professional” flunkies while pretending to be in “touch with the common people”. While it was plainly obvious that he was a neoliberal shill as far back as 2004, many chose to believe otherwise. The especially disastrous second term of Bush43 and financial crisis of 2008 had left people desperately seeking a modern-day messiah who would finally ‘reset’ the system. It certainly helped that his main opponent in the democratic primary (Hillary Clinton) and presidential election (John McCain) simply did not look like they could effect change.

The decisions made by Obama mentioned in the first two parts of this series, from ignoring the needs and concerns of black and hispanic voters to blocking progress towards universal single-payer healthcare and promoting “free trade” policies, damaged the democratic party by reducing enthusiasm and turnout of predominantly democratic voters. However, there was another category of.. shall we call them.. “social trends” which occurred when Obama was president that may have further damaged the cause of establishment democrats. I have sorta talked about issue in a standalone post from a few months ago.

To recapitulate, the main point I made in that post was as follows: elite support for fringe cultural and identity based movements under the guise of promoting social justice is a way to distract the 99% from talking about systemic socio-economic exploitation while simultaneously feeling morally superior to them. But what does the rise of elite support for fake social justice have to do with the Obama presidency? Isn’t most of the rise of such pseudo-activism related to generational changes in the worldview of people? The answer to that is a bit complicated.

There is no doubt that some changes in social norms are generational. Examples include support for gay marriage, marijuana legalization, inter-racial dating and marriage, single payer healthcare etc. Readers might have noticed that these widely accepted generational changes are about greater fairness, equality and rationality. In other words, the most broadly popular generational changes in worldview are about more rights for more people and more humane treatment of other people. Their broad popularity is, therefore, hardly surprising.

Now contrast that with far less popular changes such as censoring idiots (campus activism against right-wing provocateurs), agitating on fringe issues few care about (ambiguous sexual identity in children) or empty political activism to become a paid spokesperson for some cause which most people do not care about (gamergate controversy and ‘woke’ feminism). The biggest difference between the very broadly popular generational changes and the largely unpopular ones is the later, rather than the former, have far more corporate and media support. But why?

Well.. as I mentioned in that standalone post, supporting attention grabbing fringe “social justice” causes allow corporations to feign social responsibility while providing cover for continued exploitation of everybody else. It just so happens that democratic establishment went full-bore in that direction after 2008. To be clear, Obama is not the only reason for establishment democrats supporting attention grabbing pseudo “social justice” causes. The neoliberal credentialed “professional” class being their second most important class of supporters was definitely an important contributing factor.

Having said that, there is no doubt that the peculiar public relation style of Obama was widely copied by other establishment democrats because it was seen as successful and respectable. And what was that style about.. Short answer, it was almost completely about perceived style and image management over substance and actions. Readers might have noticed that many positive media stories about Obama were about him meeting and acting nice towards people disadvantaged in a ridiculously uncommon but attention grabbing manner. You might also remember that Twitter, FaceBook and popular listicle sites used to have daily stories about Obama meeting some disadvantaged or ill person almost every single day since 2010.

It is my opinion that many establishment types in his party saw that type of fake behavior and subsequent positive MSM coverage as key to winning elections- especially after he won re-election in 2012. The fact that they had no real progressive socio-economic message for voters made them double down on that strategy. The net result was that establishment democrats put an inordinate amounts of effort in publicly supporting causes which bolstered their pseudo-enlightened image but were not popular. Doing so also allowed them to ignore truly popular causes such as raising the minimum wage, implementing single-payer healthcare, reigning in corporate monopolies etc.

They assumed that portraying themselves as more enlightened and credentialed republicans combined with inevitable demographic changes would help them become the permanent ruling party without having to support real progressive causes. They assumed that all those non-white voters would just vote for them in even larger numbers than previous elections- because they had no options. It turns out that many, if not all, their major assumptions were wrong and they lost the presidential election to a second-rate reality TV star, could not win back the house or senate and not win back almost any of the over 1,000 seats they have lost in state legislatures since 2009.

What do you think? Comments?

Three Erroneous Assumptions Made by Most Americans about DPRK

October 25, 2017 7 comments

As regular readers know, I have written more than a few posts about the current situation caused by DPRK aka North Korea testing nuclear weapons and ICBMs. The gist of those posts is as follows: Accepting DPRK as a bonafide nuclear weapon state with a rational foreign policy and acting towards it accordingly is infinitely better than pretending otherwise.

Having said that, I have noticed that a lot of americans keep on making a number of erroneous, and unrealistic, assumptions about DPRK and the current situation. While we certainly cannot go over every one of them in a single post, I thought it would be a good idea to cover the three most important erroneous assumptions (or beliefs) about that country and the current situation.

Erroneous Belief # 1
: Current situation between DPRK & USA can be resolved by military force.

While jingoists, keyboard warriors and many west-point educated generals might want to believe that the USA could resolve its current situation with DPRK through military force, even a basic reality check and some knowledge of relevant history suggests otherwise. Let me remind you that the decision by USA to not attempt a Korean War 2.0 after the 1953 armistice was based in military calculations, rather than humanitarian considerations- to put it mildly.

As many of you know, DPRK has hundreds (if not thousands) of artillery pieces capable of bombarding Seoul on a moment’s notice- not to mention the tens of thousands of rocket artillery and swarms of short-range missiles. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by DPRK in the later half of 2000s makes the destruction of Seoul Capital Area (about 25 million people) almost inevitable if a serious war was to break out between DPRK and USA. To make a long story short, Korean War 2.0 = No Seoul

Then there is the question of whether large urban aggregations in Japan, specifically the Greater Tokyo Area, would get nuked in the event of such a war. It is no secret that DPRK has a number of liquid and solid fueled SRBMs which could deliver a few nukes on top of such large urban aggregations. While Japan claims to have many types of “effective” anti-ballistic missiles, it is highly doubtful that they can do much against a swarm of dozens of warheads within a 2-3 minute window, especially if only 5-6 of them were nuclear.

My point is that even the most optimistic projections of casualties caused by DPRK’s response to a military strike by USA involve millions of dead and dying people in South Korea and Japan plus long-term (potentially irreversible) damage to two of the largest and most prosperous urban areas in the world. And we have not even started talking about the effects of a few nuclear weapon tipped ICBMs going off over large cities in mainland USA.

Erroneous Belief # 2: DPRK is a vassal state of China.

One belief constantly resurfacing in regards to the current situation with DPRK is that China is somehow the real power behind the show. Another version of this belief is that China possess extraordinary leverage over DPRK. The reality is, however, quite different. While China has always been the most important trading partner for DPRK and was its most important weapons provider in the past, its actual leverage over DPRK has been rather limited. Even worse, the political relationship between them has never been especially warm.

China’s support for DPRK has to be understood through the lens of history and pragmatism. To put it bluntly, China intervened in the Korean war because it did not want an american puppet state on its eastern border- which is also why it got involved in the Vietnam war. Of course, China is quite happy to let DPRK poke and prod South Korea, Japan and generally undermine the rationale for american military presence in that region. But let us clear about one thing, Beijing does not control Pyongyang. Nor do they want, or can afford, the current regime in DPRK to fail.

A related delusion still popular among americans is the belief China will help the USA secure DPRK after a “successful” invasion of DPRK. Even if we discount the possibility that major urban centers in South Korea and Japan will be nuked within the first few minutes of a serious armed confrontation, we have to contend with the reality that DPRK’s leadership (or their population) do not see China as their master and will not hesitate to use their weapons against China. Yes.. you heard that right. If DPRK feels that China is cooperating with USA to invade it, there is a pretty high likelihood that some of their nukes will go off over Chinese cities.

Erroneous Belief # 3: DPRK will agree to give up its nuclear weapons.

Another popular delusion harbored by the establishment in USA is that they can somehow convince DPRK to give up its nuclear weapons. While this delusion is especially funny, it is worthwhile to point out that “denuclearization” of DPRK is still the main and only focus of any talks USA is willing to have with DPRK. Let us be clear about one thing, only one nation (namely, South Africa) has ever voluntarily gave up its arsenal of self-developed. Also they had less than a dozen of very primitive nuclear weapons- so it wasn’t exactly a big sacrifice to begin with.

In spite of all the sanctimonious talk about global denuclearization, no other nuclear weapon power has seriously considered giving up its nuclear weapon arsenal. In fact, all nuclear weapon powers have kept on improving their weapons even if two of them (Russia and USA) did reduce the absolute numbers in their inventory in the 1990s. However the total number of nuclear weapons in the world had remained largely constant since those early post-cold war reductions. It is not realistic to expect any nuclear weapon power, let alone one who needs such deterrent capability, to give up nuclear weapons- especially if they were developed indigenously.

Furthermore, the experience of DPRK of negotiating with USA in the mid-1990s, and then again in the early-2000s, has left them with the correct impression that any treaty with the USA is not worth the paper on which it was printed. They correctly recognized that credible lethal force is necessary for any future talks with USA. In other words, DPRK now rightly believes that acquisition of a credible capability to launch a nuclear attack on american cities is a prerequisite to any worthwhile talks between the two parties. The recent fiasco over Trump decertifying a multinational nuclear deal with Iran has simply demonstrated that their strategy towards USA is correct.

In this situation and environment, it is supremely delusional to believe that a regime whose survival is predicated on possessing a credible nuclear deterrent will give it up to satisfy another country which has consistently demonstrated its unwillingness to respect the terms of any agreement it has ever signed. In other words, DPRK (and many other countries) will require a credible nuclear deterrent as long as the USA continues to exist in its current form. Also, USA is no longer seen as an omnipotent military power- especially after its recent humiliating defeats in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

What do you think? Comments?

Passwords are Vastly Superior to Biometric Identification: Oct 22, 2017

October 22, 2017 1 comment

I am just trying to finish a post that I started writing some time ago- but got distracted by some current topic or event. Having said that, let us get back to the topic at hand which is somewhat relevant to an upcoming series about the ongoing crappification of technology in pretty much all sectors of the eCONomy. The main focus of this post is how the much touted idea, by silli valley corporations, of using biometrics or anything similar to that as a replacement for passwords is an extremely bad idea- on multiple levels. Here are two recent examples of such articles and don’t click on them unless you want to read shitty journalism (Shill Piece #1, Shill Piece #2).

Now let me explain you why using Biometrics IDs on the internet, or on internet connected devices, is such a bad idea.

Issue #1: Using Biometric IDs instead of passwords promotes a false sense of security.

One of main lies repeated by corporations involved in promoting biometrics based ID is that it is somehow much harder to crack than text-based passwords. They often bring up misleading arguments about the length of biometric data signature vs passwords, implying that a longer length somehow magically translates into higher security. This argument is however a complete misdirection since the vast majority of password leaks are due to hacking of improperly secured corporate databases and exploits in operating systems and transmission protocols. In other words, the most common point of failure for password security is unrelated to the carefulness or carelessness of the person who uses it. Which brings us the second issue.

Issue #2: Passwords, unlike Biometric IDs, can be easily changed and individualized.

How many of you use the same password for your online banking, email, social media and other accounts? Why not? Well.. the vast majority of those who have used computers for over a decade tend to use different passwords for different accounts since doing so prevents the leak of one password from compromising all other accounts. Moreover, it is fairly trivial to change a password if you suspect that it was compromised. Now imagine doing that with your biometric ID. Are you going to get plastic surgery and eye replacement every time some corporate database containing your biometric ID is hacked? Because if you won’t do that, even a single compromised database could destroy your personal life- and the recourse for restoring your identity would be downright Kafkaesque.

Issue #3: Compromised Biometric IDs will inevitably cause cascading security failures.

Imagine a world where Biometric ID is central to using services from banking, healthcare, education etc. Now think through the aftermath of a successful hacking of one of the many databases containing your Biometric ID. For starters, you can bet that it would be sold on the market to the highest bidder. It goes without saying that every aspect of your life would be forever altered by even a single leak. The centrality of Biometric ID in such a world would mean that you would never again be safe from identity theft and there is nothing anyone could do about that- unless there was a password option available. But if such a system is intrinsically problematic enough to necessitate a password based backup- why use it in the first place?

To summarize, the point I am trying to make is that widespread adoption and use of biometric ID by various online (or largely online) corporations and institutions is an extremely bad idea due to the intrinsically unsolvable risks and collateral problems it would create, without offering any real advantages over using passwords or similar authentication systems.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Oct 20, 2017

October 20, 2017 4 comments

These links are NSFW. Will post something intellectual tomorrow.

Pro Outdoor Cuties: Oct 17, 2017 – Pro cuties posing outdoors.

Plugged and Bound Cuties: Oct 17, 2017 – Plugged and restrained amateur cuties.

Plugged Amateur Cuties: Oct 17, 2017 – Amateur cuties showing off their plugs.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Dystopic Implications of Sam Kriss’s Trial by Social Media: Oct 18, 2017

October 18, 2017 7 comments

The event discussed in this post is a bit obscure, and not well publicized, but it carries highly dystopian implications. While I have mentioned its central character in an older post, it is worthwhile to quickly go over some relevant details. Sam Kriss, is a young but somewhat well-known freelance journalist whose articles have been published by a number of alternative and not-so-alternative online media outlets such as VICE, Jacobin, Slate, Politico, Baffler etc. He is known for his verbose and often personalized style of writing, which includes insulting some of the subjects of his pieces. It is also worthwhile to know that he has strong leftist and marxist leanings (at least in his articles) in spite of being born to wealthy parents. His outspoken support for the “feminist cause” during the Gamergate controversy is relevant to the current controversy.

So did the current kerfuffle, which is the topic of this post, start? Well.. like many controversies nowadays it started with a celebrity driven social media phenomena and a social media post. More specifically, the “#metoo” campaign on twitter in the wake of revelations of prolonged sexual improprieties by Harvey Weinstein has seemingly opened the floodgates of accusations against men of some fame in the entertainment and media industry. While some of the new accusations are likely true and rather disturbing, more than a few of the newly publicized accusations seem to be less about rape than about aggressive and unwelcome sexual comments and advances. In other words, many of the newly surfacing accusations are about stuff that is not illegal under current laws, but could be perceived as unwelcome or insulting by one party to the interaction.

If that was not the case, many of those being accused would have been tried and convicted by the existent legal system a long time ago. Either that, or those making the accusations would have been far richer than they are now.

Why is any of this relevant to the main focus of this post? Well.. it comes to the circumstances of the recent accusations made against Sam Kriss. A day or two ago, a woman journalist published a lengthy denunciation of Sam Kriss on FaceBook. In it, she claimed to have been sexually assaulted by him on at least one occasion. As you might expect, tons of twitter feminists and their “male allies” went on denunciation spree of his alleged actions based solely on her version of the story. Anybody who dared to suggest that the accuser’s version of the events might be incomplete or not completely true was brushed away as ‘mansplaining’ and evidence of patriarchic oppression or complicity with “rapists”. As it turns out there was more than side to this story and one detail which was very relevant to what occurred.

Sam Kriss published his response yesterday. To quickly summarize, he does not deny that the alleged incident took place. He does, however, provide the very relevant detail that he had a pre-existing casual sexual relationship with his accuser when the event in question occurred. Let me rephrase that, he already had sex with her on more than one occasion prior to the events in question. He claims that he was just aggressively flirting with her with the expectation of another sexual encounter. He also claims that she did not at any stage of that encounter, ask him to stop. Moreover, she continued to message him for many months after that encounter suggesting that a future hookup was possible. As it stands today, it is still his word against her- though I am sure that both parties have some electronic evidence of their past conversations.

And as most of you would expect, these accusations have unleashed a storm of “indignation” (for public display) against Sam Kriss based solely on accusations made against him on a social media platform. To be clear, it is hard to know which of two parties is being untruthful since there has been no formal process of (legal) discovery, let alone a formal criminal or civil trial. Personally, I think it is unlikely that the accusations made against him would stand in any half-decent court of law- largely because it is one of those ‘he said-she said’ type situations without physical evidence to decisively support either of their accounts. This has however not stopped some of the media outlets which had previously published his articles from dropping him from their roster. A backbench Labor MP in UK has even called for him to be locked up even before he is formally accused (if that will ever happen) and proven guilty in a court of law.

It is hard to ignore the similarities between witch hunts in previous eras and such cases. In both, the accuser (or accusers) version of the story was usually believed in an uncritical manner while all evidence contrary to the accuser’s version of events was suppressed or deliberately ignored. In both cases, prosecution of the accused was justified as a moral good and backed up by an ideology, irrespective of any evidence that it was neither. In both cases, those who dissented were labelled as enablers of “un-goodness” and agents of the “great deceivers”. In both cases, kangaroo “courts” and mob “justice” were seen as far more desirable than due process and a fair trial. My point is that making significant decisions about the innocence or guilt of any person without due process or a fair trial is a reversion to the pre-enlightenment era rather than an improvement over the current setup.

As an amusing side-note to this story, it is worth recounting that Sam Kriss was an outspoken supporter of “social media feminists” who ranted and raved about all those “sexist” male gamers during the Gamergate controversy. While it is hard to say what drove him to make fun of all those “loser” male gamers and their concerns during that period, whatever he did was unable to protect him from the witchunt caused by an accusation of sexual aggression (and maybe assault) on social media. Notably, almost none of the “feminists” he so vocally supported during the Gamergate controversy appears willing to give a fair hearing to his (very plausible) version of the story. Maybe, uncritical support of a bunch of ideologues with no real interest in fairness or due process was not a good idea in the first place. In any case, it will be interesting to see how this story develops in the near future.

What do you think? Comments?

An Explanation for the Odd Behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Oct 15, 2017

October 15, 2017 12 comments

As regular readers know, I have previously written two posts (Link 1, Link 2) about this topic. Both were a mixture of some news items about this still developing topic as well as initial speculation about why others in the industry remained silent for so long. To make a long story short, it is very likely that similar behavior is common in the entertainment industry and Harvey Weinstein is unlikely to go down without a series of nasty fight- which might end up exposing other prominent figures in that industry.

We are, however, still left with the unanswered question about the real motivation behind his actions. I mean.. what would motivate a very rich, famous and powerful guy to chase down often unwilling women of far lesser means just to expose himself and jerk off in front of them. While it is certainly possible that the majority of women he propositioned in that manner did indeed go along with the ‘script’ and have sex with him. Why not just hire super-attractive escorts or make an explicit sex-for-money arrangement with women he fancied?

The method used by Harvey Weinstein to proposition known and aspiring actresses/models was not especially efficient in addition to being significantly riskier than just purchasing sexual services from them. What makes his choice of method especially odd is that he seems to be an especially smart, rational and pragmatic guy in his long and very successful professional life. There is also the question as to what pleasure he was obtaining from jerking off in front of often disgusted women.

Conventional feminist-influenced explanations for his behavior ranger from obviously unrealistic to sublimely absurd. There are, for example, theories centered around his behavior was yet another example of “male entitlement”. The people who peddle these theories do not however explain why most men are not turned on by the idea of jerking in front of unwilling women. Others want to blame industry ‘sexism’ for his behavior. But that still does not explain why he did things that way when he could have simply offered those women money for sexual acts.

There is however a different, and far more rational explanation, for his behavior.

Let us start to by asking the simple question- when he did he start propositioning women in that manner? Well.. as far as we know, to date, he was propositioning women in that manner since the mid-1980s. In other words, Harvey Weinstein was propositioning women for at least a few years before he became really famous. In other words, his behavioral pattern was established before he became famous. Subsequent public acclaim and successes simply brought him more opportunities to indulge in that pattern of behavior.

So how did it all start? For starters, he was born to a fairly average middle-class Jewish family in NY. It seems that both he, and his brother, appeared to be smart and driven- even as kids. But his overall upbringing and rather non-elite educational background (SUNY- Buffalo) must have been shared by many tens of thousands of kids- none of whom grew up to be Harvey Weinstein. So what made him the person he ended up becoming?

Part of the answer to that question might lie in an unusual and somewhat tragic event which occurred when he was 10 years old. Long story short- he lost one of his eyes in a playground accident. It took him about 6 months to recover from the accident and it was during this time that he first got seriously interested in the entertainment industry. Basically, a series of events resulting from his losing an eye is what drove Harvey Weinstein to the career which would make him rich and famous.

And this brings us the next question- What other effect did losing an eye at that age have on him? Well.. for one, it would not have helped his social life in school or university. Between his general appearance, lack of inherited money and lack of one eye- his normal sexual advances towards women were likely met with scorn, contempt and very high degree of failure. To put it another way, he likely suffered a lot of humiliation from women during the earlier part of his life. Maybe, he never forget that humiliation.

Given that his behavior towards all those women was largely about humiliating them (through exposing himself, jerking off in front of them or making them have sex with him), it is very likely that he saw it as payback for what he had received before he became wealthy, famous and powerful. That is also why he preferred to impose himself on women rather than quietly pay for sex. It was about redressing his perceived grievances with women. It is also telling that he went after attractive women irrespective of their overall body type, race or fame.

His behavior was, therefore, less about sex and more about payback for all the rejection and humiliation he had received from far less attractive women in the past. And that is also why he started doing it so early on in his career. He just wanted to dish out what he had received, albeit on a far larger scale. To summarize: his behavior was a peculiar manifestation of vengeance and payback, maybe not exactly legal or “nice”- but rational nonetheless.

What do you think? Comments?